Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

So this explains the Rwanda obsession – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • Options

    Lots of Man Utd fans on PB who have no discernible connection to Manchester; similarly many Liverpool fans on here with no discernible connection to Merseyside.

    Funny old world.

    I hope you are not referencing me

    I was born in Greater Manchester within a few miles of Old Trafford
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,931
    edited December 2023
    viewcode said:

    Sean_F said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought sir Keir was pretty poor on Today this morning but the traffic did not have me in the most charitable of moods. It’s not often that promises of boring diligence sound attractive.

    But then I heard the Conservatives. Christ on a bike. There are morons who think Parliamentary sovereignty means we are not bound by any international agreements. There are closet racists who think that Rwanda will just do whatever they are told. There are people, struggling to find an adjective short of fascist, who think it’s ok to exclude the courts from any kind of review of executive action no matter what.

    Boring, dull and nothing beyond the normal level of incompetence started to sound better and better.

    And that's Starmer's appeal.

    I'm sure there are those on the left who are narked that he's not promising a Social Democratic Revolution. And there will be problems when some national issues don't magically vanish with a new government.

    But I'm pretty sure that it's not just me thinking "he'll have to do, whatever happens can't be worse than this."

    And provided he does, provided he stops some of this, he can be PM as long as he wants. The "Things can only get better" threshold is incredibly low right now, and all the current blue team are complicit in that.

    The Conservative Wets really have lived up to their name on this. Shame, because they're meant to be my tribe.
    Driving home, the rain and the traffic was even worse but listening to the representative of the One Nation Tory group almost had me weeping. That a Conservative seriously had to argue that the rule of law and judicial intervention are an essential part of the democratic process and acknowledge that a lot of his colleagues disagreed with him… it just beggars belief.

    The disease that infected US Republicans 6-7 years ago is here. And it frankly sickens me.
    Hysterical nonsense

    A large chunk of the Tory Party believes the government has lost all control of immigration - legal and illegal, and is incapable of rectifying this

    AND THEY HAVE A POINT

    The fact that some egregious twerps like Mark Francois are involved on the anti-government side, or that Rwanda is a debacle of a policy, does not make this observation less true
    Looking at it dispassionately, it’s difficult not to conclude that immigration is mostly driven by ‘pull’ factors - how many people we actually need - and not so much ‘push’ factors such as how many people want to come here and how the authorities try to regulate the numbers.

    Closing off the supply of young Europeans coming here prior to Brexit has simply led to much larger numbers of non-Europeans arriving.
    And the hilarious irony?

    Young Europeans were way more likely to return home. For the weekend, for the summer, forever.

    If you voted Brexit to reduce immigration and keep Britain white and Christian... Boy, did they lie to you.
    And the non-Europeans are much keener to bring across the rest of their family….
    The European ones were just content to send their progeny the child benefit cheques.
    Still works out cheaper than the child being in the UK in terms of the extra resources needed. The Tories have been a dismal failure on immigration and it was pitiful to see the spineless gimp blaming everyone else .
    I agree. But PB's Labour-aligned commentors have been making a lot of this fact whilst also being very upset about how inhumane the raising of the wage requirement is. Which I don't get.
    The policy on spouses is horrific . The Tories are breaking up families and it’s really quite despicable when this is a minor part of immigration.
    Perhaps, but are the same despicable Tories not being critiqued for allowing too many dependents in?
    The issue is the HO is a shambles and haven’t clarified whether this will be retrospectively applied . It could mean Brits spouses who are in the country already will be forced to leave . Even if they have children they could be forced to all leave the country or have children split from one parent .
    No, existing married couples are not going to be forced to leave. That would be a very obvious breach of the HRA.
    Leopards eating the face...
    As it is with Sandpit. Cheerleading the party that makes it even harder to bring Mrs Sandpit to Blighty.
  • Options
    Greetings from beyond the Great Fire Wall of China! Inflight WiFi on China Eastern and this is the first regular website I’ve been able to access! Sunak resigned yet?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,086

    Lots of Man Utd fans on PB who have no discernible connection to Manchester; similarly many Liverpool fans on here with no discernible connection to Merseyside.

    Funny old world.

    It really is not. The idea most football fans have direct connections to the clubs they support is something very pre-1990s if not earlier when it comes to big globally known clubs. So thinking that is strange is itself really unusual.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,033
    kle4 said:

    Lots of Man Utd fans on PB who have no discernible connection to Manchester; similarly many Liverpool fans on here with no discernible connection to Merseyside.

    Funny old world.

    It really is not. The idea most football fans have direct connections to the clubs they support is something very pre-1990s if not earlier when it comes to big globally known clubs. So thinking that is strange is itself really unusual.
    Yes, the type of supporter @anabobazina is talking about is known as a ‘legacy fan’ nowadays.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,111

    Greetings from beyond the Great Fire Wall of China! Inflight WiFi on China Eastern and this is the first regular website I’ve been able to access! Sunak resigned yet?

    No. The MPs were full of sound and fury signifying nothing. They were very brave until they weren't. The Rwanda bill passed 2nd reading and drama will resume in January.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,920

    Anyone care to guess, just how high the upcoming legal judgement against Rudy Giuliani is gonna be, following his impending guilty verdict for defamation against election workers?

    My own guess is north of $50 million. Including punitive damages (of course).

    Fact that this absurd serial scumbucket is a former United States District Attorney will NOT soften the blow. Just the opposite.

    Do they give him time to pay?
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,978
    viewcode said:

    Greetings from beyond the Great Fire Wall of China! Inflight WiFi on China Eastern and this is the first regular website I’ve been able to access! Sunak resigned yet?

    No. The MPs were full of sound and fury signifying nothing. They were very brave until they weren't. The Rwanda bill passed 2nd reading and drama will resume in January.
    Facebook clip recorded ✅

    Duty to the nation ❌
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,877
    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    Lots of Man Utd fans on PB who have no discernible connection to Manchester; similarly many Liverpool fans on here with no discernible connection to Merseyside.

    Funny old world.

    It really is not. The idea most football fans have direct connections to the clubs they support is something very pre-1990s if not earlier when it comes to big globally known clubs. So thinking that is strange is itself really unusual.
    Yes, the type of supporter @anabobazina is talking about is known as a ‘legacy fan’ nowadays.
    The sort of fans that still use real money you mean?
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,920

    Lots of Man Utd fans on PB who have no discernible connection to Manchester; similarly many Liverpool fans on here with no discernible connection to Merseyside.

    Funny old world.

    Would you expect the young folk of Accrington to go round with Arthur Higginbottom shirts just because of a painful accident of birth?

    https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&p=accrington+stanley+milk+commercial&type=dhm_A0JQ1_set_bfr__alt__ddc_srch_searchpulse_net#id=3&vid=7b696329209871a9e9d8612bc02aba40&action=view
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,978

    For Sunil, this is THE classic American railroad ballad

    Hank Snow - The Wreck of The Old 97
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNo0cGi1xZU&t=25s

    BTW, the reference to the "Black greasy fireman" was not a racial slur, as much as a tribute to a working man with a hard, dirty job - and did it well, sadly with tragic consequences.

    Possible also that the fireman was NOT African American, but a white guy covered with coal dust from shoveling the stuff to fuel the boiler. But suspect that he likely was Black as opposed to black, seeing as how the song is set in western Virginia.

    I think you will find it is racist and you and the song should be cancelled in some way or another. Just because poor people did dirty jobs doesn't mean... something or other. God, cancelling is so much easier when you don't have to think.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,156
    TimS said:

    Labour have tweeted their small boats plan:

    https://x.com/jreynoldsmp/status/1734680195146350615?s=46

    Sensible politics to have something you can just retweet every time someone in government says “Labour has no plan”.

    But the copywriter was having an off day. I mean, “Have new agreements with France”. “Have”. Don’t start a sentence, particularly one articulating an important plank of policy, with “have”.

    I would also have made it something like "Work with France" because making new agreements is a hostage to fortune. But working with them can mean anything in a generally positive sense.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,686
    Awkward

    Famous Remoaner cites another example of how disastrous Brexit is for Britain, this time in the field of AI regulation


    "🔥 BREAKING. EU historic deal on AI laws.

    “The agreement puts the EU ahead of the US, China and the UK in the race to regulate artificial intelligence”

    Brexiteers told us that Brexit would allow the UK to lead here. They hadn’t a clue…"

    https://x.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1733270679103898045?s=20


    A few days later President Macron intervenes, and says the new EU law is potentially disastrous, and will leave the EU lagging behind the USA, China, and the UK

    "EU’s new AI Act risks hampering innovation, warns Macron"

    French president argues landmark rules may leave European tech companies lagging rivals in the US, UK and China"

    https://x.com/julianHjessop/status/1734663215731093854?s=20

    This would appear, therefore, to be an Actual Brexit Benefit
  • Options
    Blimey. Newsnight says 75% of those who come on a small boat are actually given asylum.

    Maybe I have not been keeping up. But I am staggered. Surely we are being constantly told these people are simply economic migrants on the make?
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,978
    mwadams said:

    TimS said:

    Labour have tweeted their small boats plan:

    https://x.com/jreynoldsmp/status/1734680195146350615?s=46

    Sensible politics to have something you can just retweet every time someone in government says “Labour has no plan”.

    But the copywriter was having an off day. I mean, “Have new agreements with France”. “Have”. Don’t start a sentence, particularly one articulating an important plank of policy, with “have”.

    I would also have made it something like "Work with France" because making new agreements is a hostage to fortune. But working with them can mean anything in a generally positive sense.
    You've given this 10hrs more thought than Labour have.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,978

    Blimey. Newsnight says 75% of those who come on a small boat are actually given asylum.

    Maybe I have not been keeping up. But I am staggered. Surely we are being constantly told these people are simply economic migrants on the make?

    I was on a bus a while back and a new immigrant dude was on a (cheap) mobile phone back home.

    "Yes!"

    ...

    "Yes!"

    ...

    "It's amazing!"

    ...

    "Yes!"

    ..

    "They have,, PAKORA!"

  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882

    Random fact of the evening: UK debt interest (£94bn) costs more than Universal Credit (£83bn)

    image

    Other interesting fact of the evening - the UK Treasury will spend more than £100bn this year giving money to the Bank of England to fund its selloff of UK Government bonds at a loss. To no public benefit whatsoever. Wheelbarrows of money put to the flame. Which we have to borrow money and pay interest to fund. An ongoing situation that proves both that Sunak and Hunt aren't serious about making a go of the UK economy, AND that Starmer doesn't have the balls or the brains to call them out on it.
    They have to be sold at some point do they not?

    Unless I am mistaken, this article suggests the cost will be £48.7bn for the current fiscal year and £38.1bn next year before falling sharply across the following two years, so I am not sure where your £100bn for this years comes from.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/30/bank-of-england-bond-losses-to-cost-government-20b-more-than-expected.html
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,920

    Blimey. Newsnight says 75% of those who come on a small boat are actually given asylum.

    Maybe I have not been keeping up. But I am staggered. Surely we are being constantly told these people are simply economic migrants on the make?

    Only in the fevered imagination of Tory MP's would people risk their lives and in many cases the lives of their children if they didn't feel they needed to
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,621

    Blimey. Newsnight says 75% of those who come on a small boat are actually given asylum.

    Maybe I have not been keeping up. But I am staggered. Surely we are being constantly told these people are simply economic migrants on the make?

    And the other 25% are probably the 17,000 that Home Office officials admitted last week that they didn't have a clue as to their whereabouts.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,978

    Random fact of the evening: UK debt interest (£94bn) costs more than Universal Credit (£83bn)

    image

    Other interesting fact of the evening - the UK Treasury will spend more than £100bn this year giving money to the Bank of England to fund its selloff of UK Government bonds at a loss. To no public benefit whatsoever. Wheelbarrows of money put to the flame. Which we have to borrow money and pay interest to fund. An ongoing situation that proves both that Sunak and Hunt aren't serious about making a go of the UK economy, AND that Starmer doesn't have the balls or the brains to call them out on it.
    They have to be sold at some point do they not?

    Unless I am mistaken, this article suggests the cost will be £48.7bn for the current fiscal year and £38.1bn next year before falling sharply across the following two years, so I am not sure where your £100bn for this years comes from.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/30/bank-of-england-bond-losses-to-cost-government-20b-more-than-expected.html
    LIZ TRUSS!

    ..

    Or am I doing wrongthink?
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    Leon said:

    Awkward

    Famous Remoaner cites another example of how disastrous Brexit is for Britain, this time in the field of AI regulation


    "🔥 BREAKING. EU historic deal on AI laws.

    “The agreement puts the EU ahead of the US, China and the UK in the race to regulate artificial intelligence”

    Brexiteers told us that Brexit would allow the UK to lead here. They hadn’t a clue…"

    https://x.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1733270679103898045?s=20


    A few days later President Macron intervenes, and says the new EU law is potentially disastrous, and will leave the EU lagging behind the USA, China, and the UK

    "EU’s new AI Act risks hampering innovation, warns Macron"

    French president argues landmark rules may leave European tech companies lagging rivals in the US, UK and China"

    https://x.com/julianHjessop/status/1734663215731093854?s=20

    This would appear, therefore, to be an Actual Brexit Benefit

    Surely depends on whether you think unregulated AI is a good thing and also whether even if we regulate we can protect ourselves from unregulated AI in originating from other countries.

    Surely there's an analogy with gain-of-function research on viruses, which I think we'd all agree should be regulated, though we may all be susceptible if other nations don't regulate it sufficiently?
  • Options
    ohnotnow said:

    Blimey. Newsnight says 75% of those who come on a small boat are actually given asylum.

    Maybe I have not been keeping up. But I am staggered. Surely we are being constantly told these people are simply economic migrants on the make?

    I was on a bus a while back and a new immigrant dude was on a (cheap) mobile phone back home.

    "Yes!"

    ...

    "Yes!"

    ...

    "It's amazing!"

    ...

    "Yes!"

    ..

    "They have,, PAKORA!"

    I guess rapacious colonialism* has its benefits?


    * TM - any of the Hard Left.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    Sean_F said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought sir Keir was pretty poor on Today this morning but the traffic did not have me in the most charitable of moods. It’s not often that promises of boring diligence sound attractive.

    But then I heard the Conservatives. Christ on a bike. There are morons who think Parliamentary sovereignty means we are not bound by any international agreements. There are closet racists who think that Rwanda will just do whatever they are told. There are people, struggling to find an adjective short of fascist, who think it’s ok to exclude the courts from any kind of review of executive action no matter what.

    Boring, dull and nothing beyond the normal level of incompetence started to sound better and better.

    And that's Starmer's appeal.

    I'm sure there are those on the left who are narked that he's not promising a Social Democratic Revolution. And there will be problems when some national issues don't magically vanish with a new government.

    But I'm pretty sure that it's not just me thinking "he'll have to do, whatever happens can't be worse than this."

    And provided he does, provided he stops some of this, he can be PM as long as he wants. The "Things can only get better" threshold is incredibly low right now, and all the current blue team are complicit in that.

    The Conservative Wets really have lived up to their name on this. Shame, because they're meant to be my tribe.
    Driving home, the rain and the traffic was even worse but listening to the representative of the One Nation Tory group almost had me weeping. That a Conservative seriously had to argue that the rule of law and judicial intervention are an essential part of the democratic process and acknowledge that a lot of his colleagues disagreed with him… it just beggars belief.

    The disease that infected US Republicans 6-7 years ago is here. And it frankly sickens me.
    Hysterical nonsense

    A large chunk of the Tory Party believes the government has lost all control of immigration - legal and illegal, and is incapable of rectifying this

    AND THEY HAVE A POINT

    The fact that some egregious twerps like Mark Francois are involved on the anti-government side, or that Rwanda is a debacle of a policy, does not make this observation less true
    Looking at it dispassionately, it’s difficult not to conclude that immigration is mostly driven by ‘pull’ factors - how many people we actually need - and not so much ‘push’ factors such as how many people want to come here and how the authorities try to regulate the numbers.

    Closing off the supply of young Europeans coming here prior to Brexit has simply led to much larger numbers of non-Europeans arriving.
    And the hilarious irony?

    Young Europeans were way more likely to return home. For the weekend, for the summer, forever.

    If you voted Brexit to reduce immigration and keep Britain white and Christian... Boy, did they lie to you.
    And the non-Europeans are much keener to bring across the rest of their family….
    The European ones were just content to send their progeny the child benefit cheques.
    Still works out cheaper than the child being in the UK in terms of the extra resources needed. The Tories have been a dismal failure on immigration and it was pitiful to see the spineless gimp blaming everyone else .
    I agree. But PB's Labour-aligned commentors have been making a lot of this fact whilst also being very upset about how inhumane the raising of the wage requirement is. Which I don't get.
    The policy on spouses is horrific . The Tories are breaking up families and it’s really quite despicable when this is a minor part of immigration.
    Perhaps, but are the same despicable Tories not being critiqued for allowing too many dependents in?
    The issue is the HO is a shambles and haven’t clarified whether this will be retrospectively applied . It could mean Brits spouses who are in the country already will be forced to leave . Even if they have children they could be forced to all leave the country or have children split from one parent .
    No, existing married couples are not going to be forced to leave. That would be a very obvious breach of the HRA.
    Leopards eating the face...
    As it is with Sandpit. Cheerleading the party that makes it even harder to bring Mrs Sandpit to Blighty.
    Have we heard from Sandpit on the immigration changes? I assume he'd have no trouble meeting the $38k threshold anyway.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,978
    Leon said:

    Awkward

    Famous Remoaner cites another example of how disastrous Brexit is for Britain, this time in the field of AI regulation


    "🔥 BREAKING. EU historic deal on AI laws.

    “The agreement puts the EU ahead of the US, China and the UK in the race to regulate artificial intelligence”

    Brexiteers told us that Brexit would allow the UK to lead here. They hadn’t a clue…"

    https://x.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1733270679103898045?s=20


    A few days later President Macron intervenes, and says the new EU law is potentially disastrous, and will leave the EU lagging behind the USA, China, and the UK

    "EU’s new AI Act risks hampering innovation, warns Macron"

    French president argues landmark rules may leave European tech companies lagging rivals in the US, UK and China"

    https://x.com/julianHjessop/status/1734663215731093854?s=20

    This would appear, therefore, to be an Actual Brexit Benefit

    The new EU AI reg's do seem really quite strange. I've seen a few non-EU people react with 'Eh?'. Feels a little like someone in ancient Singapore saying "You there! Beaker People! Stop making things! Or else!...."
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,686

    Leon said:

    Awkward

    Famous Remoaner cites another example of how disastrous Brexit is for Britain, this time in the field of AI regulation


    "🔥 BREAKING. EU historic deal on AI laws.

    “The agreement puts the EU ahead of the US, China and the UK in the race to regulate artificial intelligence”

    Brexiteers told us that Brexit would allow the UK to lead here. They hadn’t a clue…"

    https://x.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1733270679103898045?s=20


    A few days later President Macron intervenes, and says the new EU law is potentially disastrous, and will leave the EU lagging behind the USA, China, and the UK

    "EU’s new AI Act risks hampering innovation, warns Macron"

    French president argues landmark rules may leave European tech companies lagging rivals in the US, UK and China"

    https://x.com/julianHjessop/status/1734663215731093854?s=20

    This would appear, therefore, to be an Actual Brexit Benefit

    Surely depends on whether you think unregulated AI is a good thing and also whether even if we regulate we can protect ourselves from unregulated AI in originating from other countries.

    Surely there's an analogy with gain-of-function research on viruses, which I think we'd all agree should be regulated, though we may all be susceptible if other nations don't regulate it sufficiently?
    Well, Macron thinks the EU law is a load of crap and will stifle innovation, and so do lots of other people in France (probably the leader in the EU in terms of AI) and also elsewhere across the continent

    So, this really could be one of the first big Brexit Benefits. The UK is a leader in AI (albeit behind the USA and China) - if Macron is right then the regulatory-crazy EU is about to drive lots of AI talent and ideas out of the EU and into London
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,696
    edited December 2023
    ohnotnow said:

    For Sunil, this is THE classic American railroad ballad

    Hank Snow - The Wreck of The Old 97
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNo0cGi1xZU&t=25s

    BTW, the reference to the "Black greasy fireman" was not a racial slur, as much as a tribute to a working man with a hard, dirty job - and did it well, sadly with tragic consequences.

    Possible also that the fireman was NOT African American, but a white guy covered with coal dust from shoveling the stuff to fuel the boiler. But suspect that he likely was Black as opposed to black, seeing as how the song is set in western Virginia.

    I think you will find it is racist and you and the song should be cancelled in some way or another. Just because poor people did dirty jobs doesn't mean... something or other. God, cancelling is so much easier when you don't have to think.
    As a Canadian, Hank Snow was not only guilty of appropriating down-home American culture for the aggrandizement of the brutal British Empire, but according to you was also aiding and abetting the aims of the racist KKK, NSDP and RSPCA.

    Many thanks for opening my eyes, comrade!
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,096
    edited December 2023

    Blimey. Newsnight says 75% of those who come on a small boat are actually given asylum.

    Maybe I have not been keeping up. But I am staggered. Surely we are being constantly told these people are simply economic migrants on the make?

    Keir Starmer is probably going to be quite unpopular with his own MPs and supporters within a short time of entering Downing Street, because he won't have any choice but to do something about migration, both illegal and legal. He'll probably end up doing more than the Tories have done, (which wouldn't be difficult).
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    Should we have a sweep on how many asylum seekers will be transported to Rwanda before the election?

    To make it more fun we could guess at how much per transported person the scheme ends up costing. This has the added variable of the ever increasing cost of the scheme to factor in.

    I'm going stick my neck out and opt for 10 at a mere £40m per person. I'll let the sensible ones amongst you opt for zero and £#DIV/0! per person
  • Options
    ohnotnow said:

    Blimey. Newsnight says 75% of those who come on a small boat are actually given asylum.

    Maybe I have not been keeping up. But I am staggered. Surely we are being constantly told these people are simply economic migrants on the make?

    I was on a bus a while back and a new immigrant dude was on a (cheap) mobile phone back home.

    "Yes!"

    ...

    "Yes!"

    ...

    "It's amazing!"

    ...

    "Yes!"

    ..

    "They have,, PAKORA!"

    Reminds me of when I was riding The Bus in Oahu early this year, and a guy got on with a carry-out container from some restaurant, a typical Hawaiian plate lunch. Then sat down behind the driver and, with zero fuss or mess, proceeded to eat his lunch.

    It looked delicious.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,978
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Awkward

    Famous Remoaner cites another example of how disastrous Brexit is for Britain, this time in the field of AI regulation


    "🔥 BREAKING. EU historic deal on AI laws.

    “The agreement puts the EU ahead of the US, China and the UK in the race to regulate artificial intelligence”

    Brexiteers told us that Brexit would allow the UK to lead here. They hadn’t a clue…"

    https://x.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1733270679103898045?s=20


    A few days later President Macron intervenes, and says the new EU law is potentially disastrous, and will leave the EU lagging behind the USA, China, and the UK

    "EU’s new AI Act risks hampering innovation, warns Macron"

    French president argues landmark rules may leave European tech companies lagging rivals in the US, UK and China"

    https://x.com/julianHjessop/status/1734663215731093854?s=20

    This would appear, therefore, to be an Actual Brexit Benefit

    Surely depends on whether you think unregulated AI is a good thing and also whether even if we regulate we can protect ourselves from unregulated AI in originating from other countries.

    Surely there's an analogy with gain-of-function research on viruses, which I think we'd all agree should be regulated, though we may all be susceptible if other nations don't regulate it sufficiently?
    Well, Macron thinks the EU law is a load of crap and will stifle innovation, and so do lots of other people in France (probably the leader in the EU in terms of AI) and also elsewhere across the continent

    So, this really could be one of the first big Brexit Benefits. The UK is a leader in AI (albeit behind the USA and China) - if Macron is right then the regulatory-crazy EU is about to drive lots of AI talent and ideas out of the EU and into London
    The Mistral AI people have been quite forthright about it (for a French startup). The Germany/France(EU) split is quite stark too.

    "The thought of having our own sovereignty in the AI sector is extremely important. But if Europe has the best regulation but no European companies, we haven’t won much." -- Germany's Vice Chancellor and Minister for Economic Affairs Robert Habeck.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    edited December 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    Blimey. Newsnight says 75% of those who come on a small boat are actually given asylum.

    Maybe I have not been keeping up. But I am staggered. Surely we are being constantly told these people are simply economic migrants on the make?

    Keir Starmer is probably going to be quite unpopular with his own MPs and supporters within a short time of entering Downing Street, because he won't have any choice but to do something about migration, both illegal and legal. He'll probably end up doing more than the Tories have done, (which wouldn't be difficult).
    Cancelling Rwanda, investing more to deal with asylum-seekers quickly and fairly, having some work-scheme for asylum-seekers awaiting processing, restricting new non-EU immigrants while agreeing more flexibility to EU citizens, having more Albania-style return agreements for boat people...

    All these things would be broadly popular with his MPs and supporters imo.
  • Options
    ohnotnow said:

    Random fact of the evening: UK debt interest (£94bn) costs more than Universal Credit (£83bn)

    image

    Other interesting fact of the evening - the UK Treasury will spend more than £100bn this year giving money to the Bank of England to fund its selloff of UK Government bonds at a loss. To no public benefit whatsoever. Wheelbarrows of money put to the flame. Which we have to borrow money and pay interest to fund. An ongoing situation that proves both that Sunak and Hunt aren't serious about making a go of the UK economy, AND that Starmer doesn't have the balls or the brains to call them out on it.
    They have to be sold at some point do they not?

    Unless I am mistaken, this article suggests the cost will be £48.7bn for the current fiscal year and £38.1bn next year before falling sharply across the following two years, so I am not sure where your £100bn for this years comes from.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/30/bank-of-england-bond-losses-to-cost-government-20b-more-than-expected.html
    LIZ TRUSS!

    ..

    Or am I doing wrongthink?
    Depends on your views, with respect to the lash of infirm government?

    Madame Whiplash is THE poster child for THAT methinks.
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Meanwhile the greatest talent in English rugby will now be unavailable for England until 2026, at the earliest

    What a disaster

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67695323

    "Henry Arundell: England wing absent from England duty until 2026 after new Racing deal"

    CHANGE THE RULES

    He defended poorly in Racing's home defeat by Harlequins at the weekend.
  • Options

    Greetings from beyond the Great Fire Wall of China! Inflight WiFi on China Eastern and this is the first regular website I’ve been able to access! Sunak resigned yet?

    I've been wondering whether it's safe to change planes in China nowadays, their flights are really cheap. When you go through security do they get all up in your electronics?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,686
    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Awkward

    Famous Remoaner cites another example of how disastrous Brexit is for Britain, this time in the field of AI regulation


    "🔥 BREAKING. EU historic deal on AI laws.

    “The agreement puts the EU ahead of the US, China and the UK in the race to regulate artificial intelligence”

    Brexiteers told us that Brexit would allow the UK to lead here. They hadn’t a clue…"

    https://x.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1733270679103898045?s=20


    A few days later President Macron intervenes, and says the new EU law is potentially disastrous, and will leave the EU lagging behind the USA, China, and the UK

    "EU’s new AI Act risks hampering innovation, warns Macron"

    French president argues landmark rules may leave European tech companies lagging rivals in the US, UK and China"

    https://x.com/julianHjessop/status/1734663215731093854?s=20

    This would appear, therefore, to be an Actual Brexit Benefit

    Surely depends on whether you think unregulated AI is a good thing and also whether even if we regulate we can protect ourselves from unregulated AI in originating from other countries.

    Surely there's an analogy with gain-of-function research on viruses, which I think we'd all agree should be regulated, though we may all be susceptible if other nations don't regulate it sufficiently?
    Well, Macron thinks the EU law is a load of crap and will stifle innovation, and so do lots of other people in France (probably the leader in the EU in terms of AI) and also elsewhere across the continent

    So, this really could be one of the first big Brexit Benefits. The UK is a leader in AI (albeit behind the USA and China) - if Macron is right then the regulatory-crazy EU is about to drive lots of AI talent and ideas out of the EU and into London
    The Mistral AI people have been quite forthright about it (for a French startup). The Germany/France(EU) split is quite stark too.

    "The thought of having our own sovereignty in the AI sector is extremely important. But if Europe has the best regulation but no European companies, we haven’t won much." -- Germany's Vice Chancellor and Minister for Economic Affairs Robert Habeck.
    With the Germans and French apparently opposed, it's surprising the new EU laws have got this far
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882
    ohnotnow said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Awkward

    Famous Remoaner cites another example of how disastrous Brexit is for Britain, this time in the field of AI regulation


    "🔥 BREAKING. EU historic deal on AI laws.

    “The agreement puts the EU ahead of the US, China and the UK in the race to regulate artificial intelligence”

    Brexiteers told us that Brexit would allow the UK to lead here. They hadn’t a clue…"

    https://x.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1733270679103898045?s=20


    A few days later President Macron intervenes, and says the new EU law is potentially disastrous, and will leave the EU lagging behind the USA, China, and the UK

    "EU’s new AI Act risks hampering innovation, warns Macron"

    French president argues landmark rules may leave European tech companies lagging rivals in the US, UK and China"

    https://x.com/julianHjessop/status/1734663215731093854?s=20

    This would appear, therefore, to be an Actual Brexit Benefit

    Surely depends on whether you think unregulated AI is a good thing and also whether even if we regulate we can protect ourselves from unregulated AI in originating from other countries.

    Surely there's an analogy with gain-of-function research on viruses, which I think we'd all agree should be regulated, though we may all be susceptible if other nations don't regulate it sufficiently?
    Well, Macron thinks the EU law is a load of crap and will stifle innovation, and so do lots of other people in France (probably the leader in the EU in terms of AI) and also elsewhere across the continent

    So, this really could be one of the first big Brexit Benefits. The UK is a leader in AI (albeit behind the USA and China) - if Macron is right then the regulatory-crazy EU is about to drive lots of AI talent and ideas out of the EU and into London
    The Mistral AI people have been quite forthright about it (for a French startup). The Germany/France(EU) split is quite stark too.

    "The thought of having our own sovereignty in the AI sector is extremely important. But if Europe has the best regulation but no European companies, we haven’t won much." -- Germany's Vice Chancellor and Minister for Economic Affairs Robert Habeck.
    Are you saying the new EU AI regulation has put the wind up Mistral?
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,882

    Greetings from beyond the Great Fire Wall of China! Inflight WiFi on China Eastern and this is the first regular website I’ve been able to access! Sunak resigned yet?

    I've been wondering whether it's safe to change planes in China nowadays, their flights are really cheap. When you go through security do they get all up in your electronics?
    We'll know that once Carlotta starts berating the Uyghurs.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,228
    edited December 2023
    Roger said:

    Blimey. Newsnight says 75% of those who come on a small boat are actually given asylum.

    Maybe I have not been keeping up. But I am staggered. Surely we are being constantly told these people are simply economic migrants on the make?

    Only in the fevered imagination of Tory MP's would people risk their lives and in many cases the lives of their children if they didn't feel they needed to
    France's acceptance rate for asylum applications is around 25% and the UK's is around 75%.

    There's no plausible explanation for that other than that our system is much more biased towards accepting people.
  • Options
    YokesYokes Posts: 1,203
    What a delight to see Mark Francois out there in front of the cameras referring to the 'Cash Amendment', I assume referring to oul Bill Cash.

    He stated this as if he was making some clever, witty, yet powerful point.

    Mark, you pompous prick, hardly anyone amongst the public knows who the fuck Bill Cash is. Communicate better
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,530
    edited December 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    Blimey. Newsnight says 75% of those who come on a small boat are actually given asylum.

    Maybe I have not been keeping up. But I am staggered. Surely we are being constantly told these people are simply economic migrants on the make?

    Keir Starmer is probably going to be quite unpopular with his own MPs and supporters within a short time of entering Downing Street, because he won't have any choice but to do something about migration, both illegal and legal. He'll probably end up doing more than the Tories have done, (which wouldn't be difficult).
    One of the aspects of politics at the moment that I think is just not even been spoken about is:

    Starmer wins. Probably not as big a win as the current landslide polls say.

    From day one part of his team's thinking will be - what can we do today to secure a second term?

    iirc Clinton ran the operation like this.

    So you are right I think. Expect big action on migration at least to neutralise it.

    The second term will be the goal. Win that and the true Starmer/Reeves/Streeting agenda can be implemented what ever it is. And I dont mean that in a slag off kind of way. That is how the world works.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,005
    Who's have guessed ?


    Far-right Polish MP uses fire extinguisher to put out Hanukah candles
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/12/far-right-polish-mp-uses-fire-extinguisher-to-put-out-hanukah-candles
    ...Asked just after the incident if he was ashamed, Braun replied: “Those who take part in acts of satanic worship should be ashamed.” He left the chamber, shaking hands with other far-right lawmakers.

    The speaker of the parliament, Szymon Hołownia, denounced Braun’s actions...

    ..Braun, a pro-Russian member of the far-right Confederation party, has in the past falsely claimed that there is a plot to turn Poland into “a Jewish state”. Earlier this year, he disrupted a planned lecture by Holocaust scholar Jan Grabowski, who has researched instances of Polish complicity in the Holocaust, causing the lecture to be cancelled...


  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,228
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Awkward

    Famous Remoaner cites another example of how disastrous Brexit is for Britain, this time in the field of AI regulation


    "🔥 BREAKING. EU historic deal on AI laws.

    “The agreement puts the EU ahead of the US, China and the UK in the race to regulate artificial intelligence”

    Brexiteers told us that Brexit would allow the UK to lead here. They hadn’t a clue…"

    https://x.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1733270679103898045?s=20


    A few days later President Macron intervenes, and says the new EU law is potentially disastrous, and will leave the EU lagging behind the USA, China, and the UK

    "EU’s new AI Act risks hampering innovation, warns Macron"

    French president argues landmark rules may leave European tech companies lagging rivals in the US, UK and China"

    https://x.com/julianHjessop/status/1734663215731093854?s=20

    This would appear, therefore, to be an Actual Brexit Benefit

    Surely depends on whether you think unregulated AI is a good thing and also whether even if we regulate we can protect ourselves from unregulated AI in originating from other countries.

    Surely there's an analogy with gain-of-function research on viruses, which I think we'd all agree should be regulated, though we may all be susceptible if other nations don't regulate it sufficiently?
    Well, Macron thinks the EU law is a load of crap and will stifle innovation, and so do lots of other people in France (probably the leader in the EU in terms of AI) and also elsewhere across the continent

    So, this really could be one of the first big Brexit Benefits. The UK is a leader in AI (albeit behind the USA and China) - if Macron is right then the regulatory-crazy EU is about to drive lots of AI talent and ideas out of the EU and into London
    And it's not just an isolated example but something that illustrates a systemic flaw with the single market itself. It's a zone that subsitutes regulation for innovation and actively hobbles individual member states to prevent unfair success.
  • Options
    Has Cox been offered a peerage in exchange for what seems to me turning out for HMG for first time in years?

    Asking for a friend.
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,812
    This thread has been bowled out
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,183
    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    Lots of Man Utd fans on PB who have no discernible connection to Manchester; similarly many Liverpool fans on here with no discernible connection to Merseyside.

    Funny old world.

    It really is not. The idea most football fans have direct connections to the clubs they support is something very pre-1990s if not earlier when it comes to big globally known clubs. So thinking that is strange is itself really unusual.
    Yes, the type of supporter @anabobazina is talking about is known as a ‘legacy fan’ nowadays.
    Yes, AKA a genuine fan. I support one of the clubs from the city I was born in. Maybe I’m the strange one nowadays. Rather sad if so.
  • Options

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought sir Keir was pretty poor on Today this morning but the traffic did not have me in the most charitable of moods. It’s not often that promises of boring diligence sound attractive.

    But then I heard the Conservatives. Christ on a bike. There are morons who think Parliamentary sovereignty means we are not bound by any international agreements. There are closet racists who think that Rwanda will just do whatever they are told. There are people, struggling to find an adjective short of fascist, who think it’s ok to exclude the courts from any kind of review of executive action no matter what.

    Boring, dull and nothing beyond the normal level of incompetence started to sound better and better.

    And that's Starmer's appeal.

    I'm sure there are those on the left who are narked that he's not promising a Social Democratic Revolution. And there will be problems when some national issues don't magically vanish with a new government.

    But I'm pretty sure that it's not just me thinking "he'll have to do, whatever happens can't be worse than this."

    And provided he does, provided he stops some of this, he can be PM as long as he wants. The "Things can only get better" threshold is incredibly low right now, and all the current blue team are complicit in that.

    The Conservative Wets really have lived up to their name on this. Shame, because they're meant to be my tribe.
    Driving home, the rain and the traffic was even worse but listening to the representative of the One Nation Tory group almost had me weeping. That a Conservative seriously had to argue that the rule of law and judicial intervention are an essential part of the democratic process and acknowledge that a lot of his colleagues disagreed with him… it just beggars belief.

    The disease that infected US Republicans 6-7 years ago is here. And it frankly sickens me.
    Hysterical nonsense

    A large chunk of the Tory Party believes the government has lost all control of immigration - legal and illegal, and is incapable of rectifying this

    AND THEY HAVE A POINT

    The fact that some egregious twerps like Mark Francois are involved on the anti-government side, or that Rwanda is a debacle of a policy, does not make this observation less true
    Looking at it dispassionately, it’s difficult not to conclude that immigration is mostly driven by ‘pull’ factors - how many people we actually need - and not so much ‘push’ factors such as how many people want to come here and how the authorities try to regulate the numbers.

    Closing off the supply of young Europeans coming here prior to Brexit has simply led to much larger numbers of non-Europeans arriving.
    And the hilarious irony?

    Young Europeans were way more likely to return home. For the weekend, for the summer, forever.

    If you voted Brexit to reduce immigration and keep Britain white and Christian... Boy, did they lie to you.
    But if you voted Leave to reduce eastern European immigration of either the Polish plumber and/or welfare Roma type then its been a great success.

    Immigrants from the third world moving to cities is a whole different thing to someone who will compete for your job moving to your street.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,629
    edited December 2023
    mwadams said:

    TimS said:

    Labour have tweeted their small boats plan:

    https://x.com/jreynoldsmp/status/1734680195146350615?s=46

    Sensible politics to have something you can just retweet every time someone in government says “Labour has no plan”.

    But the copywriter was having an off day. I mean, “Have new agreements with France”. “Have”. Don’t start a sentence, particularly one articulating an important plank of policy, with “have”.

    I would also have made it something like "Work with France" because making new agreements is a hostage to fortune. But working with them can mean anything in a generally positive sense.
    We are already spaffing money at the French. How much bigger does SKS want those cheques to be?

    These bullet points are pretty shit really aren't they? The last one especially, is complete pie in the sky - achieve 1st world status for the developing world (or presumably 3rd world status for the UK) so nobody wants to come here anymore. Great one guys.

    'Cooperation with Europe' is also a highly suspect pillar of this - we know that SKS would actually like to sign us up to EU agreements so we actually have to take a share of their migrants too.

    The rest of it is just 'run things better'. Try as I might, I just can't see SKS putting a rocket up the Civil Service. I find it likelier they'd run rings round him.
  • Options
    Has this been mentioned already:

    Thames Water is facing a "seminal moment", its chairman has said, during an intense grilling by MPs on the firm's financial performance.

    Senior management admitted the company did not have enough money to pay off a £190m loan due in April next year.

    They also warned that if it was nationalised, taxpayers would face a hefty bill.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67696645

    I imagine various executive parasites have enriched themselves while running up an £18bn debt for someone else to pay.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,096

    Has this been mentioned already:

    Thames Water is facing a "seminal moment", its chairman has said, during an intense grilling by MPs on the firm's financial performance.

    Senior management admitted the company did not have enough money to pay off a £190m loan due in April next year.

    They also warned that if it was nationalised, taxpayers would face a hefty bill.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67696645

    I imagine various executive parasites have enriched themselves while running up an £18bn debt for someone else to pay.

    How does this sort of thing happen? It's mindboggling.
  • Options

    Andy_JS said:

    Blimey. Newsnight says 75% of those who come on a small boat are actually given asylum.

    Maybe I have not been keeping up. But I am staggered. Surely we are being constantly told these people are simply economic migrants on the make?

    Keir Starmer is probably going to be quite unpopular with his own MPs and supporters within a short time of entering Downing Street, because he won't have any choice but to do something about migration, both illegal and legal. He'll probably end up doing more than the Tories have done, (which wouldn't be difficult).
    One of the aspects of politics at the moment that I think is just not even been spoken about is:

    Starmer wins. Probably not as big a win as the current landslide polls say.

    From day one part of his team's thinking will be - what can we do today to secure a second term?

    iirc Clinton ran the operation like this.

    So you are right I think. Expect big action on migration at least to neutralise it.

    The second term will be the goal. Win that and the true Starmer/Reeves/Streeting agenda can be implemented what ever it is. And I dont mean that in a slag off kind of way. That is how the world works.
    Just about the first thing Bill Clinton did as President was trash the Dems reputation as the 'party of the working man' with:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nannygate
  • Options

    ohnotnow said:

    For Sunil, this is THE classic American railroad ballad

    Hank Snow - The Wreck of The Old 97
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNo0cGi1xZU&t=25s

    BTW, the reference to the "Black greasy fireman" was not a racial slur, as much as a tribute to a working man with a hard, dirty job - and did it well, sadly with tragic consequences.

    Possible also that the fireman was NOT African American, but a white guy covered with coal dust from shoveling the stuff to fuel the boiler. But suspect that he likely was Black as opposed to black, seeing as how the song is set in western Virginia.

    I think you will find it is racist and you and the song should be cancelled in some way or another. Just because poor people did dirty jobs doesn't mean... something or other. God, cancelling is so much easier when you don't have to think.
    As a Canadian, Hank Snow was not only guilty of appropriating down-home American culture for the aggrandizement of the brutal British Empire, but according to you was also aiding and abetting the aims of the racist KKK, NSDP and RSPCA.

    Many thanks for opening my eyes, comrade!
    Brutish Empire? :lol:
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,183
    Andy_JS said:

    Has this been mentioned already:

    Thames Water is facing a "seminal moment", its chairman has said, during an intense grilling by MPs on the firm's financial performance.

    Senior management admitted the company did not have enough money to pay off a £190m loan due in April next year.

    They also warned that if it was nationalised, taxpayers would face a hefty bill.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67696645

    I imagine various executive parasites have enriched themselves while running up an £18bn debt for someone else to pay.

    How does this sort of thing happen? It's mindboggling.
    Start with, um, privatising something that falls out of the sky, and go from there
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,111
    Andy_JS said:

    Has this been mentioned already:

    Thames Water is facing a "seminal moment", its chairman has said, during an intense grilling by MPs on the firm's financial performance.

    Senior management admitted the company did not have enough money to pay off a £190m loan due in April next year.

    They also warned that if it was nationalised, taxpayers would face a hefty bill.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67696645

    I imagine various executive parasites have enriched themselves while running up an £18bn debt for someone else to pay.

    How does this sort of thing happen? It's mindboggling.
    Steve Richards points out in one of his books (Turning Points?) that there's no point in privatising a thing if the Government has to bail it out when it goes broke. So privatising BA - fine, it goes broke, somebody else buys the bits. But if a water company goes broke, the Govt is forced to fix it. Privatising the profits, socializing the losses. Some things just shouldn't have been privatised.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,183
    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Has this been mentioned already:

    Thames Water is facing a "seminal moment", its chairman has said, during an intense grilling by MPs on the firm's financial performance.

    Senior management admitted the company did not have enough money to pay off a £190m loan due in April next year.

    They also warned that if it was nationalised, taxpayers would face a hefty bill.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67696645

    I imagine various executive parasites have enriched themselves while running up an £18bn debt for someone else to pay.

    How does this sort of thing happen? It's mindboggling.
    Steve Richards points out in one of his books (Turning Points?) that there's no point in privatising a thing if the Government has to bail it out when it goes broke. So privatising BA - fine, it goes broke, somebody else buys the bits. But if a water company goes broke, the Govt is forced to fix it. Privatising the profits, socializing the losses. Some things just shouldn't have been privatised.
    Spot on. That’s why telecoms worked and water and rail didn’t. You’d think someone might have spotted this simple flaw in the cunning plan at the time.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,228

    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Has this been mentioned already:

    Thames Water is facing a "seminal moment", its chairman has said, during an intense grilling by MPs on the firm's financial performance.

    Senior management admitted the company did not have enough money to pay off a £190m loan due in April next year.

    They also warned that if it was nationalised, taxpayers would face a hefty bill.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67696645

    I imagine various executive parasites have enriched themselves while running up an £18bn debt for someone else to pay.

    How does this sort of thing happen? It's mindboggling.
    Steve Richards points out in one of his books (Turning Points?) that there's no point in privatising a thing if the Government has to bail it out when it goes broke. So privatising BA - fine, it goes broke, somebody else buys the bits. But if a water company goes broke, the Govt is forced to fix it. Privatising the profits, socializing the losses. Some things just shouldn't have been privatised.
    Spot on. That’s why telecoms worked and water and rail didn’t. You’d think someone might have spotted this simple flaw in the cunning plan at the time.
    Although the majority of the water supply in France has always been private.

    Water privatisation is perhaps an example where the European dimension created a dysfunctional dynamic where the UK thought it was setting an example by going fully private and introducing competition that was in fact spurious.
  • Options

    isam said:

    kle4 said:

    Lots of Man Utd fans on PB who have no discernible connection to Manchester; similarly many Liverpool fans on here with no discernible connection to Merseyside.

    Funny old world.

    It really is not. The idea most football fans have direct connections to the clubs they support is something very pre-1990s if not earlier when it comes to big globally known clubs. So thinking that is strange is itself really unusual.
    Yes, the type of supporter @anabobazina is talking about is known as a ‘legacy fan’ nowadays.
    Yes, AKA a genuine fan. I support one of the clubs from the city I was born in. Maybe I’m the strange one nowadays. Rather sad if so.
    NOT a local, know little and care even less about the game, but nevertheless (or is it nonetheless?) I am a fan of Partick Thistle.

    Why? Because George Macdonald Fraser once opined (in one of his MacAuslan novels, via aside from one of the characters) that, "Partick Thistle is a tautology".

    Think I just figured out why. BUT afraid to say in case I'm wrong!

    Plus this item from the vastness of the web cements my fervant if far off (in more ways than one) fanaticism for The Jags. (Is Peter Morrel also a fan?)

    "Sports team mascots are often chosen based on symbolism, characteristics or qualities that are supposed to bring positive energy or success. But sometimes they’re just downright scary. Take Kingsley, who represents Partick Thistle, a professional football club from Glasgow, and looks like a squashed sun with the cold dead eyes of a killer. He was designed by Turner Prize-nominated artist David Shrigley and was unveiled in 2015 to coincide with Thistle’s new sponsorship from investment firm Kingsford Capital Management. Reactions to Kingsley varied from ‘Lisa Simpson on meth’ to ‘the haggard face of the Teletubbies’ sun baby’. Kingsley also has the dubious honour of being the only mascot ever to earn a review from the Guardian’s art critic Jonathan Jones, who compared him to the monsters painted and sculpted by the surrealist Joan Miró. It obviously hit home as well, with Kingsley’s web page on the Partick Thistle site reading as follows:

    ‘There were a lot of mean things said about me when I first appeared, but I’m not too concerned because I know it’s what’s on the inside that counts. I’m a nice guy really – just a bit misunderstood … I might look a bit angry but I’m really very approachable and I love Partick Thistle. So don’t be scared to come and say hello if you see me out and about.’

    https://emmawilkin.com/words-of-the-week-2/tag/etymology
  • Options

    ohnotnow said:

    For Sunil, this is THE classic American railroad ballad

    Hank Snow - The Wreck of The Old 97
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNo0cGi1xZU&t=25s

    BTW, the reference to the "Black greasy fireman" was not a racial slur, as much as a tribute to a working man with a hard, dirty job - and did it well, sadly with tragic consequences.

    Possible also that the fireman was NOT African American, but a white guy covered with coal dust from shoveling the stuff to fuel the boiler. But suspect that he likely was Black as opposed to black, seeing as how the song is set in western Virginia.

    I think you will find it is racist and you and the song should be cancelled in some way or another. Just because poor people did dirty jobs doesn't mean... something or other. God, cancelling is so much easier when you don't have to think.
    As a Canadian, Hank Snow was not only guilty of appropriating down-home American culture for the aggrandizement of the brutal British Empire, but according to you was also aiding and abetting the aims of the racist KKK, NSDP and RSPCA.

    Many thanks for opening my eyes, comrade!
    Brutish Empire? :lol:
    Spoken like an Irishman! Though do NOT be expecting An Taoiseach to be saying it anytime too soon.
This discussion has been closed.