I stopped eating processed food about a month ago. Just switched to eating fresh food, with some unavoidable exceptions. By this I mean eating fresh meat, fish, and fresh vegetables, and just sticking to food that hasn't been processed, ie rice, potato, bread, pasta. fresh and dried fruit, nuts. The main improvement, amongst many, is that I no longer get hungry unless I actually need to eat, which I think could address my long term problem of being overweight. It also costs much less. I worked out that, if I ever needed to, I could buy a whole weeks worth of food for under £10 from Lidl. But even with extravagancies like cashew nuts, king prawns, sourdough bread from the bakery etc, it is cheaper than cooking tasteless packet food.
Must be some shit you are eating if it only costs 10 quid a week
Per person? Still, better than Mr 30p's ideas - I can't do better than pauper soup on 30p.
beans/tomatos for 20-30p. Bread is 70p a loaf. A whole chicken is £3.50 Fresh fruit/veg - carrots 70p/kg Frozen veg - peas £1/kg Rice is about 50p a bag. potato 30p/kg porridge oats £1.20/kg chickpeas 45p/tin coconut milk - 70p Cheese £2.50
From the above you could make
chicken and vegetable Soup 2 different curries sandwiches breakfast
I would say under £10 for the whole week, on average, with advance planning. If you have more people then economies of scale come in, the 30p meal is not impossible.
Not really enough protein for a week there, and pretty light on fruit & veg - and you've left out the cost of energy and any form of seasoning!
The problem with this is that the debate has been poisoned by the like of Jack Monroe's "I can feed a family of 3 for £20 a week" stuff - it usually turns out that person making those claims is talking about the cost of a top-up shop in addition to their already well-stocked cupboards. It's may well be doable in the short term, but isn't sustainable beyond a few weeks.
I believe that 30p Lee was talking about something slightly different - a single portion of a large batch-cooked meal using ingredients from a food bank. Again, the costings work out for that specific meal... but they can't really be extrapolated to a weekly budget, let alone a monthly one.
I'd probably add some mince and pasta sheets on top of that, and a cordial or two, eggs, milk and some fresh fruit. Salad? Maybe. Sometimes. Quite expensive for what you get and doesn't last more than a day or two. I'd probably go for tomatoes and tinned sweetcorn.
Still, I could probably get that within £25 a week and, as you say, you then have a floating few quid around to plug the gaps in condiments.
I've been surprised (I think it really came into focus during lockdown) how many people can't cook at all. Like not even chop an onion or boil some potatoes. Just totally alien to them.
I remember doing 'Home Economics' at secondary school which was utterly useless when it came to food. We made a "pizza" by smearing tomato puree over half a roll with a spoon then the teacher grilled it for us - she even did the cheese grating - too dangerous for the kids. But I was lucky and learned the basics by helping my mother cook at home.
It's things like that which really make me wonder about diabetes/weight/general problems with people. The cost of the treatment vs. just some basic "Here's how to make some soup or pasta" education at an early age.
I've just done a bit of research online tonight and the salaries on offer in the USA are astonishing. Not just a little bit more: like 100-125% more than you'd get paid for the same job here. And that's after the exchange rate.
Now, you have to factor in a massive chunk for healthcare, and the fact you might get shot, or die in the ensuring civil war - and that's if you don't kill yourself first over the insane tipping culture and the total absence of a soul to any of the towns and cities - but still.
Hmm.
As you say, you have to pay 20% tips on everything.
Apparently, that's entry level tipping: 15% is considered extremely offensive, and 30% is more like it. More if you genuinely want to please someone.
I think I'd just stay at home and not bother going out. It's the faff of carrying and thinking about a wad of small-dom bills everywhere you go on top, if nothing else, and constantly calculating if you've called it right.
It’s basically VAT, only with added guilt and social awkwardness.
It is a genuine blight on life in America. It’s as off putting as the weather in the UK
It’s also another reason why life in Indochina is sweet. No tipping. You might give a small tip to a bargirl or waiter but that’s it. And if you don’t they won’t dare get stroppy. Its not the culture
They do the job as well as they can for the money they get - and they are incredibly polite. And crime is minimal. It’s a very seductive place for a westerner
Islam is non existent so everyone drinks and has fun but they don’t get smashed and have fights and there’s no terrorism or cousin marriage of honour killings or mass racist gang rape. Or fgm or acid attacks or anti semitism. Or burqas or niqabs or wild homophobia
Ok you get the occasional coup but hey
And a year zero now and again.
Last time but one we were in a B&B it was shared with a pleasant American couple. Had a farm etc. Turned out - I can't recall how it came about, but I don't think he was boasting or anything - maybe I happened to have an air book on the table - that the husband had flown in the Linebacker offensive. I could only grunt meaningfully.
Edit: Because I'd read about it. They had to fly their B-52s on high-altitude paths and times determined by senior officers. With S-750 SAMs firing at them all the time. Protected only by jamming. Turn their bombers at fixed points, all the bombers doing so at the same point, by order. And when the bomber banked to turn, that threw the jamming out. So the NVs knew where to aim ...
'With the support of Scotland’s first minister, Humza Yousaf, the SNP will table a motion to be debated in the Commons on Wednesday, which intends to challenge Starmer by calling for an immediate end to the violence.
Labour is desperate to avoid a repeat of last November’s sizeable rebellion by MPs over Starmer’s stance, which saw 56 Labour MPs back a similar SNP motion and three shadow spokespeople resign.'
Can't wait for four or five years of this of Labour just scrape a majority. It'll make the Tory DUP deal look stable. And strong...
Especially given the SNP policy of not interfering with rUK stuff (unless it interferes with Scotland, of course). Can you imagine?
The pacemaker is working but under strict instructions from the medics to take it easy for the next 6 weeks as the 2 leads grow heart muscle and become difficult to dislodge
Also DVLA affirm my licence to drive subject to a lifetime of pacemaker checks which is indeed medical practice
Oh, that's good.
I had my first bath tonight and it was wonderful but not sure how my new steely lump will look on the Italian Costa d' Amalfi !!
A steely lump at your age is very impressive @Big_G_NorthWales. Well done!
The pacemaker is working but under strict instructions from the medics to take it easy for the next 6 weeks as the 2 leads grow heart muscle and become difficult to dislodge
Also DVLA affirm my licence to drive subject to a lifetime of pacemaker checks which is indeed medical practice
Oh, that's good.
I had my first bath tonight and it was wonderful but not sure how my new steely lump will look on the Italian Costa d' Amalfi !!
A steely lump at your age is very impressive @Big_G_NorthWales. Well done!
Glad I didn't have a mouthful of red wine whilst reading this.
The pacemaker is working but under strict instructions from the medics to take it easy for the next 6 weeks as the 2 leads grow heart muscle and become difficult to dislodge
Also DVLA affirm my licence to drive subject to a lifetime of pacemaker checks which is indeed medical practice
Oh, that's good.
I had my first bath tonight and it was wonderful but not sure how my new steely lump will look on the Italian Costa d' Amalfi !!
A steely lump at your age is very impressive @Big_G_NorthWales. Well done!
Glad I didn't have a mouthful of red wine whilst reading this.
17 days since I had a glass of wine or any other alcohol. To be honest it has bothered me a lot less than I anticipated.
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
The pacemaker is working but under strict instructions from the medics to take it easy for the next 6 weeks as the 2 leads grow heart muscle and become difficult to dislodge
Also DVLA affirm my licence to drive subject to a lifetime of pacemaker checks which is indeed medical practice
Oh, that's good.
I had my first bath tonight and it was wonderful but not sure how my new steely lump will look on the Italian Costa d' Amalfi !!
A steely lump at your age is very impressive @Big_G_NorthWales. Well done!
Glad I didn't have a mouthful of red wine whilst reading this.
17 days since I had a glass of wine or any other alcohol. To be honest it has bothered me a lot less than I anticipated.
Conservatives have seen a two point recovery in the polls bringing the lead back down to 15 points.
No way Greens are on 7%.
I would agree but if they weren't Labour would probably be higher. Same applies to Reform for the Tories but arguably to a lesser extent.
LLG:RefCon is 60:36 which isn’t far off the other polls despite Opinium’s swingback methodology. It seems their adjustments, as well as dampening Labour, slightly increase LD and Green.
The pacemaker is working but under strict instructions from the medics to take it easy for the next 6 weeks as the 2 leads grow heart muscle and become difficult to dislodge
Also DVLA affirm my licence to drive subject to a lifetime of pacemaker checks which is indeed medical practice
Oh, that's good.
I had my first bath tonight and it was wonderful but not sure how my new steely lump will look on the Italian Costa d' Amalfi !!
A steely lump at your age is very impressive @Big_G_NorthWales. Well done!
If Sunak were smart and sane, he would go for 2nd May. It's by fair his best option financially, logistically, politically and personally.
We must therefore assume the election will be on December 12th.
I also think he'll try and hang on until the end of the year in the hope that something will turn up, though I must say he did look utterly miserable yesterday so depending on how much he's looking forward to a politics-free life in California be might just decide to get it out of the way... 🙏
I’m not convinced he’ll head off to California, at least yet. He will win his Richmond seat, that much is pretty certain even in a wipeout scenario, and I could see him carrying on for a while. Politics is addictive and Sunak seems to revel in it: even those who either supposedly retired from it or were turfed out, like Osborne, Balls, Gauke, Stewart, Brown, Cameron, all somehow kept at it in other guises.
Sunak can pootle along on the backbenches doing very little for the next term and focusing on other things, he doesn't need to officially call it quits and jet off for California. He's a young man still after all, he has so much time.
I cannot see someone who's barely ever had to worry about the day job of a backbench MP, and never in opposition, putting much time into the leg work that goes into that.
Fundamentally though, resigning as an MP means less scrutiny of his finances and behaviour. Given he would stand to make a lot of money as all ex-PMs do, but possibly turbo-charged given his connections in finance and tech, and has significant interests via his wife and own investments now and in the future, it would surely make sense to stand down. Is, say, a committee chairmanship, worth loads of awkward questions about this or that directorship that is very convenient given certain big govt. contracts are up for tender, or whether a fund he might advise/found is betting against govt. policy?
They don't decide when the election is, he does. Perk of the job.
The implication is that “they” here are Sunak allies. Hence LuckyGuy’s saboteurs comment.
I mean it really is classic - they scared Tory MPs shitless that Truss would lose them all their jobs, and convinced them that Sunak would save them - now he wants to chuck those same MPs under a bus just to help him cling on till the GE. He's got his fingernails dug deeper into the doorframe than TMay.
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
But that is the point which the judge has ignored. If he was worth $2.5bn and if he had the $200m in cash with all the nonsense stripped out he was entitled to those interest rates.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
If Sunak were smart and sane, he would go for 2nd May. It's by fair his best option financially, logistically, politically and personally.
We must therefore assume the election will be on December 12th.
I also think he'll try and hang on until the end of the year in the hope that something will turn up, though I must say he did look utterly miserable yesterday so depending on how much he's looking forward to a politics-free life in California be might just decide to get it out of the way... 🙏
I’m not convinced he’ll head off to California, at least yet. He will win his Richmond seat, that much is pretty certain even in a wipeout scenario, and I could see him carrying on for a while. Politics is addictive and Sunak seems to revel in it: even those who either supposedly retired from it or were turfed out, like Osborne, Balls, Gauke, Stewart, Brown, Cameron, all somehow kept at it in other guises.
Sunak can pootle along on the backbenches doing very little for the next term and focusing on other things, he doesn't need to officially call it quits and jet off for California. He's a young man still after all, he has so much time.
I cannot see someone who's barely ever had to worry about the day job of a backbench MP, and never in opposition, putting much time into the leg work that goes into that.
Fundamentally though, resigning as an MP means less scrutiny of his finances and behaviour. Given he would stand to make a lot of money as all ex-PMs do, but possibly turbo-charged given his connections in finance and tech, and has significant interests via his wife and own investments now and in the future, it would surely make sense to stand down. Is, say, a committee chairmanship, worth loads of awkward questions about this or that directorship that is very convenient given certain big govt. contracts are up for tender, or whether a fund he might advise/found is betting against govt. policy?
He’s going to step down, get Indian citizenship and then go for Prime Minister of India for some major trolling.
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
But that is the point which the judge has ignored. If he was worth $2.5bn and if he had the $200m in cash with all the nonsense stripped out he was entitled to those interest rates.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
I think you're missing the point. He was raising the loans on specific assets, supported by valuations that were sufficiently different from the ones he used for *other* purposes to be fraudulent. Including lying about the size of the buildings.
Which meant he benefitted from lower interest rates than he should have paid, enabling him to buy other properties (one part of the fine is the profits from the sale of a property he purchased with these loans) and lower taxes.
Now, if you lie on a mortgage application, don't you get punished? And if you lie to the tax authorities, ditto?
Which is what has happened here.
The spectacular part is the amount, but that's only because Trump's such a chiseller.
If Sunak were smart and sane, he would go for 2nd May. It's by fair his best option financially, logistically, politically and personally.
We must therefore assume the election will be on December 12th.
I also think he'll try and hang on until the end of the year in the hope that something will turn up, though I must say he did look utterly miserable yesterday so depending on how much he's looking forward to a politics-free life in California be might just decide to get it out of the way... 🙏
I’m not convinced he’ll head off to California, at least yet. He will win his Richmond seat, that much is pretty certain even in a wipeout scenario, and I could see him carrying on for a while. Politics is addictive and Sunak seems to revel in it: even those who either supposedly retired from it or were turfed out, like Osborne, Balls, Gauke, Stewart, Brown, Cameron, all somehow kept at it in other guises.
Sunak can pootle along on the backbenches doing very little for the next term and focusing on other things, he doesn't need to officially call it quits and jet off for California. He's a young man still after all, he has so much time.
I cannot see someone who's barely ever had to worry about the day job of a backbench MP, and never in opposition, putting much time into the leg work that goes into that.
Fundamentally though, resigning as an MP means less scrutiny of his finances and behaviour. Given he would stand to make a lot of money as all ex-PMs do, but possibly turbo-charged given his connections in finance and tech, and has significant interests via his wife and own investments now and in the future, it would surely make sense to stand down. Is, say, a committee chairmanship, worth loads of awkward questions about this or that directorship that is very convenient given certain big govt. contracts are up for tender, or whether a fund he might advise/found is betting against govt. policy?
He’s going to step down, get Indian citizenship and then go for Prime Minister of India for some major trolling.
Let's just not bother with Judges and just let the Daily Mail dispense justice. After all we pay Judges a lot of money, mainly because they have years of expertise and knowledge, and could earn much more elsewhere. The Daily Mail could just feature it's headline grabbing narratives and do some cheap and cheerful online votes.
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
But that is the point which the judge has ignored. If he was worth $2.5bn and if he had the $200m in cash with all the nonsense stripped out he was entitled to those interest rates.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
I think you're missing the point. He was raising the loans on specific assets, supported by valuations that were sufficiently different from the ones he used for *other* purposes to be fraudulent. Including lying about the size of the buildings.
Which meant he benefitted from lower interest rates than he should have paid, enabling him to buy other properties (one part of the fine is the profits from the sale of a property he purchased with these loans) and lower taxes.
Now, if you lie on a mortgage application, don't you get punished? And if you lie to the tax authorities, ditto?
Which is what has happened here.
The spectacular part is the amount, but that's only because Trump's such a chiseller.
Well, we shall see how the appeal goes.
But the reason he got these low interest rates was (apart from the incompetence of Deutsch Bank) that he gave a personal guarantee. Which he did.
It was a condition of the guarantee that he had a net worth of $2.5bn. He had to certify this each year in statements of financial condition. These contained many blatant and some truly remarkable lies but did he meet the condition or not? If he did then, as I have said, there are other charges of which he is guilty but the logic of the judgment is that he would have been paying 10% over LIBOR instead of 1-2% over LIBOR.
I think that there is also an error in which the interest rate has been calculated but that is less significant in the context of the judgment.
I stopped eating processed food about a month ago. Just switched to eating fresh food, with some unavoidable exceptions. By this I mean eating fresh meat, fish, and fresh vegetables, and just sticking to food that hasn't been processed, ie rice, potato, bread, pasta. fresh and dried fruit, nuts. The main improvement, amongst many, is that I no longer get hungry unless I actually need to eat, which I think could address my long term problem of being overweight. It also costs much less. I worked out that, if I ever needed to, I could buy a whole weeks worth of food for under £10 from Lidl. But even with extravagancies like cashew nuts, king prawns, sourdough bread from the bakery etc, it is cheaper than cooking tasteless packet food.
Must be some shit you are eating if it only costs 10 quid a week
Per person? Still, better than Mr 30p's ideas - I can't do better than pauper soup on 30p.
beans/tomatos for 20-30p. Bread is 70p a loaf. A whole chicken is £3.50 Fresh fruit/veg - carrots 70p/kg Frozen veg - peas £1/kg Rice is about 50p a bag. potato 30p/kg porridge oats £1.20/kg chickpeas 45p/tin coconut milk - 70p Cheese £2.50
From the above you could make
chicken and vegetable Soup 2 different curries sandwiches breakfast
I would say under £10 for the whole week, on average, with advance planning. If you have more people then economies of scale come in, the 30p meal is not impossible.
I get the sentiment and as an often-poor person I don't disagree but a note of caution, a £3.50 chicken, if you've everytried to get stock out of one, doesn't have any bones which makes me wonder about their treatment and content. They're weird. And rice isn't ideal for westerners, our intestines are too short to get the nutrition out.
If you're lucky enough to live near a large supermarket and you have to Stalingrad for a few weeks you can game the yellow stickers section for organic properly raised chicken, or to batch cook stickered mince or something. In reality if you're living in that mode that's the proper option.
I stopped eating processed food about a month ago. Just switched to eating fresh food, with some unavoidable exceptions. By this I mean eating fresh meat, fish, and fresh vegetables, and just sticking to food that hasn't been processed, ie rice, potato, bread, pasta. fresh and dried fruit, nuts. The main improvement, amongst many, is that I no longer get hungry unless I actually need to eat, which I think could address my long term problem of being overweight. It also costs much less. I worked out that, if I ever needed to, I could buy a whole weeks worth of food for under £10 from Lidl. But even with extravagancies like cashew nuts, king prawns, sourdough bread from the bakery etc, it is cheaper than cooking tasteless packet food.
Must be some shit you are eating if it only costs 10 quid a week
Per person? Still, better than Mr 30p's ideas - I can't do better than pauper soup on 30p.
beans/tomatos for 20-30p. Bread is 70p a loaf. A whole chicken is £3.50 Fresh fruit/veg - carrots 70p/kg Frozen veg - peas £1/kg Rice is about 50p a bag. potato 30p/kg porridge oats £1.20/kg chickpeas 45p/tin coconut milk - 70p Cheese £2.50
From the above you could make
chicken and vegetable Soup 2 different curries sandwiches breakfast
I would say under £10 for the whole week, on average, with advance planning. If you have more people then economies of scale come in, the 30p meal is not impossible.
I get the sentiment and as an often-poor person I don't disagree but a note of caution, a £3.50 chicken, if you've everytried to get stock out of one, doesn't have any bones which makes me wonder about their treatment and content. They're weird. And rice isn't ideal for westerners, our intestines are too short to get the nutrition out.
If you're lucky enough to live near a large supermarket and you have to Stalingrad for a few weeks you can game the yellow stickers section for organic properly raised chicken, or to batch cook stickered mince or something. In reality if you're living in that mode that's the proper option.
also goji berries in porridge, which sometimes you can get surprisingly cheap, is extremely filling thanks for reading this great content remember to hit the notification bell
I stopped eating processed food about a month ago. Just switched to eating fresh food, with some unavoidable exceptions. By this I mean eating fresh meat, fish, and fresh vegetables, and just sticking to food that hasn't been processed, ie rice, potato, bread, pasta. fresh and dried fruit, nuts. The main improvement, amongst many, is that I no longer get hungry unless I actually need to eat, which I think could address my long term problem of being overweight. It also costs much less. I worked out that, if I ever needed to, I could buy a whole weeks worth of food for under £10 from Lidl. But even with extravagancies like cashew nuts, king prawns, sourdough bread from the bakery etc, it is cheaper than cooking tasteless packet food.
Must be some shit you are eating if it only costs 10 quid a week
Per person? Still, better than Mr 30p's ideas - I can't do better than pauper soup on 30p.
beans/tomatos for 20-30p. Bread is 70p a loaf. A whole chicken is £3.50 Fresh fruit/veg - carrots 70p/kg Frozen veg - peas £1/kg Rice is about 50p a bag. potato 30p/kg porridge oats £1.20/kg chickpeas 45p/tin coconut milk - 70p Cheese £2.50
From the above you could make
chicken and vegetable Soup 2 different curries sandwiches breakfast
I would say under £10 for the whole week, on average, with advance planning. If you have more people then economies of scale come in, the 30p meal is not impossible.
I get the sentiment and as an often-poor person I don't disagree but a note of caution, a £3.50 chicken, if you've everytried to get stock out of one, doesn't have any bones which makes me wonder about their treatment and content. They're weird. And rice isn't ideal for westerners, our intestines are too short to get the nutrition out.
If you're lucky enough to live near a large supermarket and you have to Stalingrad for a few weeks you can game the yellow stickers section for organic properly raised chicken, or to batch cook stickered mince or something. In reality if you're living in that mode that's the proper option.
also goji berries in porridge, which sometimes you can get surprisingly cheap, is extremely filling thanks for reading this great content remember to hit the notification bell
Yeah good, liked and subscribed. I went for organic chicken from Lidl and got decent stock from it but haven't tried the £3.50 chicken, which the more I think about it, is questionable (how can you raise, feed, then slaughter an animal, package, transport it for all of £3.50?) I got some mince then bulked it out with grated carrot, making a hybrid beef/veg bolognaise, which did seem to work.
If Sunak were smart and sane, he would go for 2nd May. It's by fair his best option financially, logistically, politically and personally.
We must therefore assume the election will be on December 12th.
I also think he'll try and hang on until the end of the year in the hope that something will turn up, though I must say he did look utterly miserable yesterday so depending on how much he's looking forward to a politics-free life in California be might just decide to get it out of the way... 🙏
I’m not convinced he’ll head off to California, at least yet. He will win his Richmond seat, that much is pretty certain even in a wipeout scenario, and I could see him carrying on for a while. Politics is addictive and Sunak seems to revel in it: even those who either supposedly retired from it or were turfed out, like Osborne, Balls, Gauke, Stewart, Brown, Cameron, all somehow kept at it in other guises.
Sunak can pootle along on the backbenches doing very little for the next term and focusing on other things, he doesn't need to officially call it quits and jet off for California. He's a young man still after all, he has so much time.
I cannot see someone who's barely ever had to worry about the day job of a backbench MP, and never in opposition, putting much time into the leg work that goes into that.
Fundamentally though, resigning as an MP means less scrutiny of his finances and behaviour. Given he would stand to make a lot of money as all ex-PMs do, but possibly turbo-charged given his connections in finance and tech, and has significant interests via his wife and own investments now and in the future, it would surely make sense to stand down. Is, say, a committee chairmanship, worth loads of awkward questions about this or that directorship that is very convenient given certain big govt. contracts are up for tender, or whether a fund he might advise/found is betting against govt. policy?
The one observation I would make is that I don't think Sunak is that money driven. If he was - why would he have become an MP? By hanging around as PM for 3 (calendar) years, he has done enough to secure his future, so I just don't think the aim will be about making money for him. He will have also watched Cameron and his wilderness years from 2016 - 2024 ending up with a return to politics. I have no idea whether he stays in the house of commons or not but I just don't think his first priority will be trying to make money, unlike Johnson.
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
But that is the point which the judge has ignored. If he was worth $2.5bn and if he had the $200m in cash with all the nonsense stripped out he was entitled to those interest rates.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
I think you're missing the point. He was raising the loans on specific assets, supported by valuations that were sufficiently different from the ones he used for *other* purposes to be fraudulent. Including lying about the size of the buildings.
Which meant he benefitted from lower interest rates than he should have paid, enabling him to buy other properties (one part of the fine is the profits from the sale of a property he purchased with these loans) and lower taxes.
Now, if you lie on a mortgage application, don't you get punished? And if you lie to the tax authorities, ditto?
Which is what has happened here.
The spectacular part is the amount, but that's only because Trump's such a chiseller.
Well, we shall see how the appeal goes.
But the reason he got these low interest rates was (apart from the incompetence of Deutsch Bank) that he gave a personal guarantee. Which he did.
It was a condition of the guarantee that he had a net worth of $2.5bn. He had to certify this each year in statements of financial condition. These contained many blatant and some truly remarkable lies but did he meet the condition or not? If he did then, as I have said, there are other charges of which he is guilty but the logic of the judgment is that he would have been paying 10% over LIBOR instead of 1-2% over LIBOR.
I think that there is also an error in which the interest rate has been calculated but that is less significant in the context of the judgment.
The appeal will presumably drag on for years. My gut feel compared with what a regulator might do is that the fines are very high but the other sanctions are in line, maybe relatively light touch. I could see a regulator banning Trump for more than three years for example.
I suspect the big impacts will be the possibility that the court mandated monitor who presumably has full access to the firm's books will start digging up more dead bodies. And that the Trump Organization will find it very hard to get credit. The SEC holds a dim view of financial services organisations that don't do their due diligence and the Trump Organization has been found guilty of fraud.
Weight loss this year is now 12.1kg. Cutting out ultra-processed food is definitely part of it. Cutting out refined sugars is *definitely* part of it.
I’ve lost 14.3kg, I’ve hit target weight. Lost over 2 stone in 10 weeks
My bp now averages around 130-135/75-85 - down from the utterly freaky 180/110 of late November last year
My alcohol intake is down 50-60%
Fasting, diet, exercise, and accepting a fuck of a lot of boredom, seems to be key
Feels good tho. Despite the tedium
I'm targeting an initial 25kgs, no nearly half way. But then another 5 or so beyond that as well would be good, to get me back to what was my fighting weight 6 years ago.
Good luck. It is intensely satisfying - hitting your target weight. I now weigh what I did 10-20 years ago. It’s nice
Only problem is some of my clothes now look weirdly baggy. I shall cope,
I’m going the other way now - as in not reducing in size. Since my heart op in early November I have added 17% of my body weight purely by an hour a day, five days a week, of weights, resistance exercise and eating very well. I had focussed beforehand on being fit before the op so was quite lean but now back not far to my body shape and weight when I was 18 and playing lots of sports.
I want to make sure that before I hit 50 I’m in as good condition as possible so that it’s quite normal to live a certain way when it’s not irreparable to continue the enjoyment of drinking and eating well.
My right knee hasn't been the same since I had an accident with a manhole a decade back. I got into running - and cycling - but I want to lose more weight first before I start ramping up the exercise.
My own experience in this area suggests building up the exercise as fast as your capabilities and comfort will allow. Exercise is no outright substitute for a certain amount of dietary restraint but it does significantly speed up weight loss when you are in energy deficit, and it allows you to get away with more treats once you're maintaining.
Also, don't neglect resistance training as well as cardio. Increased strength will make that cardio easier, and muscle tissue is energy intensive to maintain so, again, it means you can get away with more of what you like to eat and spend less time pretending to enjoy low calorie yogurts and salads. Having a higher percentage of total body mass consisting of muscle is why blokes tend to find it that much easier to succeed on weight loss programs, and to reach target more rapidly, than women.
It seems like Kingswood has moved to the right over the years, despite being next to Bristol. For example, in 1992 Kinnock won it by about 2,500 votes.
I stopped eating processed food about a month ago. Just switched to eating fresh food, with some unavoidable exceptions. By this I mean eating fresh meat, fish, and fresh vegetables, and just sticking to food that hasn't been processed, ie rice, potato, bread, pasta. fresh and dried fruit, nuts. The main improvement, amongst many, is that I no longer get hungry unless I actually need to eat, which I think could address my long term problem of being overweight. It also costs much less. I worked out that, if I ever needed to, I could buy a whole weeks worth of food for under £10 from Lidl. But even with extravagancies like cashew nuts, king prawns, sourdough bread from the bakery etc, it is cheaper than cooking tasteless packet food.
Must be some shit you are eating if it only costs 10 quid a week
Per person? Still, better than Mr 30p's ideas - I can't do better than pauper soup on 30p.
beans/tomatos for 20-30p. Bread is 70p a loaf. A whole chicken is £3.50 Fresh fruit/veg - carrots 70p/kg Frozen veg - peas £1/kg Rice is about 50p a bag. potato 30p/kg porridge oats £1.20/kg chickpeas 45p/tin coconut milk - 70p Cheese £2.50
From the above you could make
chicken and vegetable Soup 2 different curries sandwiches breakfast
I would say under £10 for the whole week, on average, with advance planning. If you have more people then economies of scale come in, the 30p meal is not impossible.
Not really enough protein for a week there, and pretty light on fruit & veg - and you've left out the cost of energy and any form of seasoning!
The problem with this is that the debate has been poisoned by the like of Jack Monroe's "I can feed a family of 3 for £20 a week" stuff - it usually turns out that person making those claims is talking about the cost of a top-up shop in addition to their already well-stocked cupboards. It's may well be doable in the short term, but isn't sustainable beyond a few weeks.
I believe that 30p Lee was talking about something slightly different - a single portion of a large batch-cooked meal using ingredients from a food bank. Again, the costings work out for that specific meal... but they can't really be extrapolated to a weekly budget, let alone a monthly one.
I'd probably add some mince and pasta sheets on top of that, and a cordial or two, eggs, milk and some fresh fruit. Salad? Maybe. Sometimes. Quite expensive for what you get and doesn't last more than a day or two. I'd probably go for tomatoes and tinned sweetcorn.
Still, I could probably get that within £25 a week and, as you say, you then have a floating few quid around to plug the gaps in condiments.
I've been surprised (I think it really came into focus during lockdown) how many people can't cook at all. Like not even chop an onion or boil some potatoes. Just totally alien to them.
I remember doing 'Home Economics' at secondary school which was utterly useless when it came to food. We made a "pizza" by smearing tomato puree over half a roll with a spoon then the teacher grilled it for us - she even did the cheese grating - too dangerous for the kids. But I was lucky and learned the basics by helping my mother cook at home.
It's things like that which really make me wonder about diabetes/weight/general problems with people. The cost of the treatment vs. just some basic "Here's how to make some soup or pasta" education at an early age.
But I guess that's not good for GDP.
Wasn't it Thatcher who cut home economics classes?
If Sunak were smart and sane, he would go for 2nd May. It's by fair his best option financially, logistically, politically and personally.
We must therefore assume the election will be on December 12th.
I also think he'll try and hang on until the end of the year in the hope that something will turn up, though I must say he did look utterly miserable yesterday so depending on how much he's looking forward to a politics-free life in California be might just decide to get it out of the way... 🙏
I’m not convinced he’ll head off to California, at least yet. He will win his Richmond seat, that much is pretty certain even in a wipeout scenario, and I could see him carrying on for a while. Politics is addictive and Sunak seems to revel in it: even those who either supposedly retired from it or were turfed out, like Osborne, Balls, Gauke, Stewart, Brown, Cameron, all somehow kept at it in other guises.
Sunak can pootle along on the backbenches doing very little for the next term and focusing on other things, he doesn't need to officially call it quits and jet off for California. He's a young man still after all, he has so much time.
I cannot see someone who's barely ever had to worry about the day job of a backbench MP, and never in opposition, putting much time into the leg work that goes into that.
Fundamentally though, resigning as an MP means less scrutiny of his finances and behaviour. Given he would stand to make a lot of money as all ex-PMs do, but possibly turbo-charged given his connections in finance and tech, and has significant interests via his wife and own investments now and in the future, it would surely make sense to stand down. Is, say, a committee chairmanship, worth loads of awkward questions about this or that directorship that is very convenient given certain big govt. contracts are up for tender, or whether a fund he might advise/found is betting against govt. policy?
He’s going to step down, get Indian citizenship and then go for Prime Minister of India for some major trolling.
Governor of California is more likely.
Although PM of the UK then becoming the PM of India to replace Modi is quite a CV, however short-lived either post was.
Think how complex his Excel sheets would be! Behold!
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
But that is the point which the judge has ignored. If he was worth $2.5bn and if he had the $200m in cash with all the nonsense stripped out he was entitled to those interest rates.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
I think you're missing the point. He was raising the loans on specific assets, supported by valuations that were sufficiently different from the ones he used for *other* purposes to be fraudulent. Including lying about the size of the buildings.
Which meant he benefitted from lower interest rates than he should have paid, enabling him to buy other properties (one part of the fine is the profits from the sale of a property he purchased with these loans) and lower taxes.
Now, if you lie on a mortgage application, don't you get punished? And if you lie to the tax authorities, ditto?
Which is what has happened here.
The spectacular part is the amount, but that's only because Trump's such a chiseller.
It’s the “laws are only for little people” attitude. Surprisingly common.
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
But that is the point which the judge has ignored. If he was worth $2.5bn and if he had the $200m in cash with all the nonsense stripped out he was entitled to those interest rates.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
I think you're missing the point. He was raising the loans on specific assets, supported by valuations that were sufficiently different from the ones he used for *other* purposes to be fraudulent. Including lying about the size of the buildings.
Which meant he benefitted from lower interest rates than he should have paid, enabling him to buy other properties (one part of the fine is the profits from the sale of a property he purchased with these loans) and lower taxes.
Now, if you lie on a mortgage application, don't you get punished? And if you lie to the tax authorities, ditto?
Which is what has happened here.
The spectacular part is the amount, but that's only because Trump's such a chiseller.
It’s the “laws are only for little people” attitude. Surprisingly common.
The Leona Helmsley Memorial Cell is open for business.
I stopped eating processed food about a month ago. Just switched to eating fresh food, with some unavoidable exceptions. By this I mean eating fresh meat, fish, and fresh vegetables, and just sticking to food that hasn't been processed, ie rice, potato, bread, pasta. fresh and dried fruit, nuts. The main improvement, amongst many, is that I no longer get hungry unless I actually need to eat, which I think could address my long term problem of being overweight. It also costs much less. I worked out that, if I ever needed to, I could buy a whole weeks worth of food for under £10 from Lidl. But even with extravagancies like cashew nuts, king prawns, sourdough bread from the bakery etc, it is cheaper than cooking tasteless packet food.
Must be some shit you are eating if it only costs 10 quid a week
Per person? Still, better than Mr 30p's ideas - I can't do better than pauper soup on 30p.
beans/tomatos for 20-30p. Bread is 70p a loaf. A whole chicken is £3.50 Fresh fruit/veg - carrots 70p/kg Frozen veg - peas £1/kg Rice is about 50p a bag. potato 30p/kg porridge oats £1.20/kg chickpeas 45p/tin coconut milk - 70p Cheese £2.50
From the above you could make
chicken and vegetable Soup 2 different curries sandwiches breakfast
I would say under £10 for the whole week, on average, with advance planning. If you have more people then economies of scale come in, the 30p meal is not impossible.
Not really enough protein for a week there, and pretty light on fruit & veg - and you've left out the cost of energy and any form of seasoning!
The problem with this is that the debate has been poisoned by the like of Jack Monroe's "I can feed a family of 3 for £20 a week" stuff - it usually turns out that person making those claims is talking about the cost of a top-up shop in addition to their already well-stocked cupboards. It's may well be doable in the short term, but isn't sustainable beyond a few weeks.
I believe that 30p Lee was talking about something slightly different - a single portion of a large batch-cooked meal using ingredients from a food bank. Again, the costings work out for that specific meal... but they can't really be extrapolated to a weekly budget, let alone a monthly one.
I'd probably add some mince and pasta sheets on top of that, and a cordial or two, eggs, milk and some fresh fruit. Salad? Maybe. Sometimes. Quite expensive for what you get and doesn't last more than a day or two. I'd probably go for tomatoes and tinned sweetcorn.
Still, I could probably get that within £25 a week and, as you say, you then have a floating few quid around to plug the gaps in condiments.
I've been surprised (I think it really came into focus during lockdown) how many people can't cook at all. Like not even chop an onion or boil some potatoes. Just totally alien to them.
I remember doing 'Home Economics' at secondary school which was utterly useless when it came to food. We made a "pizza" by smearing tomato puree over half a roll with a spoon then the teacher grilled it for us - she even did the cheese grating - too dangerous for the kids. But I was lucky and learned the basics by helping my mother cook at home.
It's things like that which really make me wonder about diabetes/weight/general problems with people. The cost of the treatment vs. just some basic "Here's how to make some soup or pasta" education at an early age.
But I guess that's not good for GDP.
Wasn't it Thatcher who cut home economics classes?
It sounds plausible. I remember a clip of her washing all the goodness out of a ball of dough to demonstrate some chemistry thing (her field if I remember rightly). It felt quite instructive on her instincts.
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
But that is the point which the judge has ignored. If he was worth $2.5bn and if he had the $200m in cash with all the nonsense stripped out he was entitled to those interest rates.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
Can you cite relevant case law supporting your line of reasoning?
To be honest I thought CON might be as low as 5s? Clearly I know nothing.
Thanks. To show how unobservant I am, I've just noticed some bruises on my arm from where they grabbed me, which I hadn't noticed before. It's not going to appear in any crime statistics, because I tried to report it to the local police station, as directed by the hotel, but when I got there it was closed, and I didn't have time the next day because I was travelling back to the UK.
I stopped eating processed food about a month ago. Just switched to eating fresh food, with some unavoidable exceptions. By this I mean eating fresh meat, fish, and fresh vegetables, and just sticking to food that hasn't been processed, ie rice, potato, bread, pasta. fresh and dried fruit, nuts. The main improvement, amongst many, is that I no longer get hungry unless I actually need to eat, which I think could address my long term problem of being overweight. It also costs much less. I worked out that, if I ever needed to, I could buy a whole weeks worth of food for under £10 from Lidl. But even with extravagancies like cashew nuts, king prawns, sourdough bread from the bakery etc, it is cheaper than cooking tasteless packet food.
Must be some shit you are eating if it only costs 10 quid a week
Per person? Still, better than Mr 30p's ideas - I can't do better than pauper soup on 30p.
beans/tomatos for 20-30p. Bread is 70p a loaf. A whole chicken is £3.50 Fresh fruit/veg - carrots 70p/kg Frozen veg - peas £1/kg Rice is about 50p a bag. potato 30p/kg porridge oats £1.20/kg chickpeas 45p/tin coconut milk - 70p Cheese £2.50
From the above you could make
chicken and vegetable Soup 2 different curries sandwiches breakfast
I would say under £10 for the whole week, on average, with advance planning. If you have more people then economies of scale come in, the 30p meal is not impossible.
I get the sentiment and as an often-poor person I don't disagree but a note of caution, a £3.50 chicken, if you've everytried to get stock out of one, doesn't have any bones which makes me wonder about their treatment and content. They're weird. And rice isn't ideal for westerners, our intestines are too short to get the nutrition out.
If you're lucky enough to live near a large supermarket and you have to Stalingrad for a few weeks you can game the yellow stickers section for organic properly raised chicken, or to batch cook stickered mince or something. In reality if you're living in that mode that's the proper option.
Western intestines are not too short to get nutrition out of rice. That's bollocks.
"When I left home in the mid-seventies for London - the city of the Sex Pistols and The Clash – it was rough and poor, and I lived, for ten years, in a housing co-op flat with a rent of twenty quid a week, next to four railway lines. We furnished the place with stuff we found in skips and jumble sales. We bought our clothes, books, and albums from second hand shops. We stole cutlery from restaurants, from which we would often abscond after eating, and we shoplifted. My school friends and the people I moved with all worked in the arts as photographers, musicians, actors, writers, and so on. We loved our work, but it never occurred to any of us that we would become wealthy or even make much of a living out of what we did. Money was never an animating force; it wasn’t in our lexicon, it was never a possibility.
What motivated us was our work and sex. We were a liberated generation, free, we believed, of hundreds of years of hiding and repression, and we wanted to fuck more than we coveted material things. The only rich people we were aware of were aristocrats who had inherited property and land. Then there were the nouveau rich models, actors and popstars, but even they had trouble holding on to money. They were admired for their creativity and originality rather than their ability to get rich. Growing up, even if you were to come into some money, there was only so much you could buy. There wasn’t so much “stuff” around."
I stopped eating processed food about a month ago. Just switched to eating fresh food, with some unavoidable exceptions. By this I mean eating fresh meat, fish, and fresh vegetables, and just sticking to food that hasn't been processed, ie rice, potato, bread, pasta. fresh and dried fruit, nuts. The main improvement, amongst many, is that I no longer get hungry unless I actually need to eat, which I think could address my long term problem of being overweight. It also costs much less. I worked out that, if I ever needed to, I could buy a whole weeks worth of food for under £10 from Lidl. But even with extravagancies like cashew nuts, king prawns, sourdough bread from the bakery etc, it is cheaper than cooking tasteless packet food.
Must be some shit you are eating if it only costs 10 quid a week
Per person? Still, better than Mr 30p's ideas - I can't do better than pauper soup on 30p.
beans/tomatos for 20-30p. Bread is 70p a loaf. A whole chicken is £3.50 Fresh fruit/veg - carrots 70p/kg Frozen veg - peas £1/kg Rice is about 50p a bag. potato 30p/kg porridge oats £1.20/kg chickpeas 45p/tin coconut milk - 70p Cheese £2.50
From the above you could make
chicken and vegetable Soup 2 different curries sandwiches breakfast
I would say under £10 for the whole week, on average, with advance planning. If you have more people then economies of scale come in, the 30p meal is not impossible.
I get the sentiment and as an often-poor person I don't disagree but a note of caution, a £3.50 chicken, if you've everytried to get stock out of one, doesn't have any bones which makes me wonder about their treatment and content. They're weird. And rice isn't ideal for westerners, our intestines are too short to get the nutrition out.
If you're lucky enough to live near a large supermarket and you have to Stalingrad for a few weeks you can game the yellow stickers section for organic properly raised chicken, or to batch cook stickered mince or something. In reality if you're living in that mode that's the proper option.
Western intestines are not too short to get nutrition out of rice. That's bollocks.
Should definitely not venture out in the Indian sun without a pith helmet, though.
Or drink the water without mixing it with a drop of The Good Stuff.
I stopped eating processed food about a month ago. Just switched to eating fresh food, with some unavoidable exceptions. By this I mean eating fresh meat, fish, and fresh vegetables, and just sticking to food that hasn't been processed, ie rice, potato, bread, pasta. fresh and dried fruit, nuts. The main improvement, amongst many, is that I no longer get hungry unless I actually need to eat, which I think could address my long term problem of being overweight. It also costs much less. I worked out that, if I ever needed to, I could buy a whole weeks worth of food for under £10 from Lidl. But even with extravagancies like cashew nuts, king prawns, sourdough bread from the bakery etc, it is cheaper than cooking tasteless packet food.
Must be some shit you are eating if it only costs 10 quid a week
Per person? Still, better than Mr 30p's ideas - I can't do better than pauper soup on 30p.
beans/tomatos for 20-30p. Bread is 70p a loaf. A whole chicken is £3.50 Fresh fruit/veg - carrots 70p/kg Frozen veg - peas £1/kg Rice is about 50p a bag. potato 30p/kg porridge oats £1.20/kg chickpeas 45p/tin coconut milk - 70p Cheese £2.50
From the above you could make
chicken and vegetable Soup 2 different curries sandwiches breakfast
I would say under £10 for the whole week, on average, with advance planning. If you have more people then economies of scale come in, the 30p meal is not impossible.
I get the sentiment and as an often-poor person I don't disagree but a note of caution, a £3.50 chicken, if you've everytried to get stock out of one, doesn't have any bones which makes me wonder about their treatment and content. They're weird. And rice isn't ideal for westerners, our intestines are too short to get the nutrition out.
If you're lucky enough to live near a large supermarket and you have to Stalingrad for a few weeks you can game the yellow stickers section for organic properly raised chicken, or to batch cook stickered mince or something. In reality if you're living in that mode that's the proper option.
Western intestines are not too short to get nutrition out of rice. That's bollocks.
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
But that is the point which the judge has ignored. If he was worth $2.5bn and if he had the $200m in cash with all the nonsense stripped out he was entitled to those interest rates.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
I think you're missing the point. He was raising the loans on specific assets, supported by valuations that were sufficiently different from the ones he used for *other* purposes to be fraudulent. Including lying about the size of the buildings.
Which meant he benefitted from lower interest rates than he should have paid, enabling him to buy other properties (one part of the fine is the profits from the sale of a property he purchased with these loans) and lower taxes.
Now, if you lie on a mortgage application, don't you get punished? And if you lie to the tax authorities, ditto?
Which is what has happened here.
The spectacular part is the amount, but that's only because Trump's such a chiseller.
Well, we shall see how the appeal goes.
But the reason he got these low interest rates was (apart from the incompetence of Deutsch Bank) that he gave a personal guarantee. Which he did.
It was a condition of the guarantee that he had a net worth of $2.5bn. He had to certify this each year in statements of financial condition. These contained many blatant and some truly remarkable lies but did he meet the condition or not? If he did then, as I have said, there are other charges of which he is guilty but the logic of the judgment is that he would have been paying 10% over LIBOR instead of 1-2% over LIBOR.
I think that there is also an error in which the interest rate has been calculated but that is less significant in the context of the judgment.
No doubt there will be an appeal over the amount of damages. Given how fraudulent were the organisation’s books throughout the period, though, it’s not very clear how Trump is going to effectively make a case against the judgment.
Andy_JS - My experience of being mugged is probably unlike most here. I was a farm kid who knew little about cities when I moved to Chicago, after graduating from college in 1965.
(I still remember being told by a New Yorker that they were cautioned by their well-off parents to always carrry enough money to cover a fix for addicts -- because otherwise the addicts might beat you up when they were mugging you. Practical, perhaps, but not heroic.)
After my first year there, I started teaching in a slum school and, early one evening after work, I was waiting at a rail transit stop, when I was accosted by by three teenage boys. While the two in front distracted me, the third came up behind me and hit me on the head with something, knocking me down. One of them grabbed my wallet -- which didn't have much in it, and the three took off.
I reported it, and the black cop who interviewed me was so embarrassed when he asked me about the race of the attackers -- the neighborhood was about 95 percent black -- that I almost tried to reassure him.
Most of my male friends had similar experiences. Their experience -- and mine -- led me to two unfashionable conclusions: Which is that crime often causes poverty, and that failing to protect a population against the predators in their midst may be a sign of tacit racism.
Which still exists, as anyone familiar with Chicago's crime statistics can tell you. Only now, there is more than a little evidence that at least a few politicians there have learned to work with the drug gangs.
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
But that is the point which the judge has ignored. If he was worth $2.5bn and if he had the $200m in cash with all the nonsense stripped out he was entitled to those interest rates.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
I think you're missing the point. He was raising the loans on specific assets, supported by valuations that were sufficiently different from the ones he used for *other* purposes to be fraudulent. Including lying about the size of the buildings.
Which meant he benefitted from lower interest rates than he should have paid, enabling him to buy other properties (one part of the fine is the profits from the sale of a property he purchased with these loans) and lower taxes.
Now, if you lie on a mortgage application, don't you get punished? And if you lie to the tax authorities, ditto?
Which is what has happened here.
The spectacular part is the amount, but that's only because Trump's such a chiseller.
Random anecdote alert. I met a guy once at a Lib Dem conference and got talking. He worked for one of the major banks in the business loans department. He took great delight in refusing loans to companies when their financial situation as claimed when applying for the loan differed greatly from their financial situation as declared to the taxman.
In all seriousness, does anybody have a fucking clue who's going to win this? Serious question.
I've no idea. Probably not CON. Serious response 👍
I'm not on the Blues side (obvs) but damn, if they were to pull this off at 150 it would be the bet of a lifetime. I think the best predicted winner on PB was Mike's 50/1 on Obama B (although @kinabalu's trading bet on Obama M at 150/1 then vs 6/1 now must also be mentioned), but a 150 winner would be one for the ages. Lob a grand on that and it's pay-off-the-mortgage. Damn, my dreams of conquest...
In all seriousness, does anybody have a fucking clue who's going to win this? Serious question.
Some reports from the constituency would be valuable.
Labour have a 20% majority and have been getting record swings TO them in recent contests. That's not a background in which you expect them to lose.
OK, the Labour candidate has been disowned, but voters are going to be presented with a ballot paper that says Labour on it.
Yes, but he's running as the Honorable Member for Hamas North. That's going to result in a sharp intake of breath thru gritted teeth, combined with backing away nervously.
In all seriousness, does anybody have a fucking clue who's going to win this? Serious question.
Some reports from the constituency would be valuable.
Labour have a 20% majority and have been getting record swings TO them in recent contests. That's not a background in which you expect them to lose.
OK, the Labour candidate has been disowned, but voters are going to be presented with a ballot paper that says Labour on it.
Yes, but he's running as the Honorable Member for Hamas North. That's going to result in a sharp intake of breath thru gritted teeth, combined with backing away nervously.
Israelis have killed more people in the last four months than Hamas have killed in the last 18 years!
If Sunak were smart and sane, he would go for 2nd May. It's by fair his best option financially, logistically, politically and personally.
We must therefore assume the election will be on December 12th.
I also think he'll try and hang on until the end of the year in the hope that something will turn up, though I must say he did look utterly miserable yesterday so depending on how much he's looking forward to a politics-free life in California be might just decide to get it out of the way... 🙏
I’m not convinced he’ll head off to California, at least yet. He will win his Richmond seat, that much is pretty certain even in a wipeout scenario, and I could see him carrying on for a while. Politics is addictive and Sunak seems to revel in it: even those who either supposedly retired from it or were turfed out, like Osborne, Balls, Gauke, Stewart, Brown, Cameron, all somehow kept at it in other guises.
Sunak can pootle along on the backbenches doing very little for the next term and focusing on other things, he doesn't need to officially call it quits and jet off for California. He's a young man still after all, he has so much time.
I cannot see someone who's barely ever had to worry about the day job of a backbench MP, and never in opposition, putting much time into the leg work that goes into that.
Fundamentally though, resigning as an MP means less scrutiny of his finances and behaviour. Given he would stand to make a lot of money as all ex-PMs do, but possibly turbo-charged given his connections in finance and tech, and has significant interests via his wife and own investments now and in the future, it would surely make sense to stand down. Is, say, a committee chairmanship, worth loads of awkward questions about this or that directorship that is very convenient given certain big govt. contracts are up for tender, or whether a fund he might advise/found is betting against govt. policy?
The one observation I would make is that I don't think Sunak is that money driven. If he was - why would he have become an MP? By hanging around as PM for 3 (calendar) years, he has done enough to secure his future, so I just don't think the aim will be about making money for him. He will have also watched Cameron and his wilderness years from 2016 - 2024 ending up with a return to politics. I have no idea whether he stays in the house of commons or not but I just don't think his first priority will be trying to make money, unlike Johnson.
Well, yes. He sorted out the money when he married. I should think following Cameron's example and becoming Foreign Sec in the 2029 Conservative govt would be quite acceptable to Rishi.
In all seriousness, does anybody have a fucking clue who's going to win this? Serious question.
Some reports from the constituency would be valuable.
Labour have a 20% majority and have been getting record swings TO them in recent contests. That's not a background in which you expect them to lose.
OK, the Labour candidate has been disowned, but voters are going to be presented with a ballot paper that says Labour on it.
Yes, but he's running as the Honorable Member for Hamas North. That's going to result in a sharp intake of breath thru gritted teeth, combined with backing away nervously.
Israelis have killed more people in the last four months than Hamas have killed in the last 18 years!
And this is relevant to the bins and potholes of Rochdale how exactly? The Hamas/Israel conflict, regardless of one's views on it, is three thousand miles away. Dippy Bloke making it the plank of his campaign is just daft
If Sunak were smart and sane, he would go for 2nd May. It's by fair his best option financially, logistically, politically and personally.
We must therefore assume the election will be on December 12th.
I also think he'll try and hang on until the end of the year in the hope that something will turn up, though I must say he did look utterly miserable yesterday so depending on how much he's looking forward to a politics-free life in California be might just decide to get it out of the way... 🙏
I’m not convinced he’ll head off to California, at least yet. He will win his Richmond seat, that much is pretty certain even in a wipeout scenario, and I could see him carrying on for a while. Politics is addictive and Sunak seems to revel in it: even those who either supposedly retired from it or were turfed out, like Osborne, Balls, Gauke, Stewart, Brown, Cameron, all somehow kept at it in other guises.
Sunak can pootle along on the backbenches doing very little for the next term and focusing on other things, he doesn't need to officially call it quits and jet off for California. He's a young man still after all, he has so much time.
I cannot see someone who's barely ever had to worry about the day job of a backbench MP, and never in opposition, putting much time into the leg work that goes into that.
Fundamentally though, resigning as an MP means less scrutiny of his finances and behaviour. Given he would stand to make a lot of money as all ex-PMs do, but possibly turbo-charged given his connections in finance and tech, and has significant interests via his wife and own investments now and in the future, it would surely make sense to stand down. Is, say, a committee chairmanship, worth loads of awkward questions about this or that directorship that is very convenient given certain big govt. contracts are up for tender, or whether a fund he might advise/found is betting against govt. policy?
The one observation I would make is that I don't think Sunak is that money driven. If he was - why would he have become an MP? By hanging around as PM for 3 (calendar) years, he has done enough to secure his future, so I just don't think the aim will be about making money for him. He will have also watched Cameron and his wilderness years from 2016 - 2024 ending up with a return to politics. I have no idea whether he stays in the house of commons or not but I just don't think his first priority will be trying to make money, unlike Johnson.
I don't think he's overly money-driven, though I do think he likes the trappings of wealth/power and challenges. Just he could pretty much do the standard things for an ex-PM and do what his professional skills mean he can, plus his wife's family's investments (which obviously he doesn't control, but is ripe to be digged into).
Like honestly,you can go to California (or stay in London) and do a version of a job you loved, make a packet, do the global leader thing. Probably get a plum role a a tech or finance role with a company that may well shape our future - and not have to worry too much about how anything will look bad in a report as you're a private citizen. Or you can go through the tedium of being an opposition backbencher who might occasionally get to get his moment on a big committee.
I'm not saying he's moneygrabbing. Just he doesn't strike me as the kind of HoC obsessive who'd feel the draw powerful.
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
But that is the point which the judge has ignored. If he was worth $2.5bn and if he had the $200m in cash with all the nonsense stripped out he was entitled to those interest rates.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
I think you're missing the point. He was raising the loans on specific assets, supported by valuations that were sufficiently different from the ones he used for *other* purposes to be fraudulent. Including lying about the size of the buildings.
Which meant he benefitted from lower interest rates than he should have paid, enabling him to buy other properties (one part of the fine is the profits from the sale of a property he purchased with these loans) and lower taxes.
Now, if you lie on a mortgage application, don't you get punished? And if you lie to the tax authorities, ditto?
Which is what has happened here.
The spectacular part is the amount, but that's only because Trump's such a chiseller.
Well, we shall see how the appeal goes.
But the reason he got these low interest rates was (apart from the incompetence of Deutsch Bank) that he gave a personal guarantee. Which he did.
It was a condition of the guarantee that he had a net worth of $2.5bn. He had to certify this each year in statements of financial condition. These contained many blatant and some truly remarkable lies but did he meet the condition or not? If he did then, as I have said, there are other charges of which he is guilty but the logic of the judgment is that he would have been paying 10% over LIBOR instead of 1-2% over LIBOR.
I think that there is also an error in which the interest rate has been calculated but that is less significant in the context of the judgment.
No doubt there will be an appeal over the amount of damages. Given how fraudulent were the organisation’s books throughout the period, though, it’s not very clear how Trump is going to effectively make a case against the judgment.
Judge Engoron has been VERY careful to not give Trump any grounds for a meaningful appeal. Only giving Trump a 3 year ban as a director was part of that. His award was slightly under what the Prosecutor had asked for.
What I wan to know is whether the Judge can also sue Trump for defamation. Trump is calling him "crooked" with no basis for that.
I stopped eating processed food about a month ago. Just switched to eating fresh food, with some unavoidable exceptions. By this I mean eating fresh meat, fish, and fresh vegetables, and just sticking to food that hasn't been processed, ie rice, potato, bread, pasta. fresh and dried fruit, nuts. The main improvement, amongst many, is that I no longer get hungry unless I actually need to eat, which I think could address my long term problem of being overweight. It also costs much less. I worked out that, if I ever needed to, I could buy a whole weeks worth of food for under £10 from Lidl. But even with extravagancies like cashew nuts, king prawns, sourdough bread from the bakery etc, it is cheaper than cooking tasteless packet food.
Must be some shit you are eating if it only costs 10 quid a week
Per person? Still, better than Mr 30p's ideas - I can't do better than pauper soup on 30p.
beans/tomatos for 20-30p. Bread is 70p a loaf. A whole chicken is £3.50 Fresh fruit/veg - carrots 70p/kg Frozen veg - peas £1/kg Rice is about 50p a bag. potato 30p/kg porridge oats £1.20/kg chickpeas 45p/tin coconut milk - 70p Cheese £2.50
From the above you could make
chicken and vegetable Soup 2 different curries sandwiches breakfast
I would say under £10 for the whole week, on average, with advance planning. If you have more people then economies of scale come in, the 30p meal is not impossible.
I'd give a shoutout for the initial offers from places like Gousto. A good way to play with cookery from scratch if you need some variety, and the prices are not bad even without the 60% off.
I was planning to have a go, but it remembered I had had the offer before in about 2015.
My other shoutout would be for bread machines. My Panasonic Croustina type is wonderful. One of my local treats is a family owned mill with a small chain of half a dozen "corn stores" which has been going since the 19C. It's quite enjoyable buying flour in a shop that sells birdseed and rabbit food and dog treats.
Quite interesting range of results from those I know who have.
I got 9 on the Cognitive Disorganisation part and 5 on the Introvertive Anhedonia, but low on the other two. Does that mean I have ADD?
I appear to be abnormally normal. It’s almost disappointing. Scores of 2, 3, 1 and 2 for the four tests.
I got a 4 on impulsive_nonconformity, 2 for cognitive_disorganisation, and 1 for the others.
I'd be interested in seeing Leon's scores - high marks for both impulsive_nonconformity and unusual_experiences?
I suspect that cultural and educational factors influence the scores too. Being British I’ve been brought up to avoid hype, so when I saw some of the questions I thought “I don’t do anything that exciting” and “well it’s never quite that intense” (like the question about almost being able to hear your own thoughts). And trying to second guess what they’re looking for brings in some extra bias - eg if you want to feel you are a tortured genius or a natural rebel you might nudge yourself answer questions in a certain way.
The question on instinctively wanting to do the opposite of what everyone else does is interesting. I expect we all have that, it’s a feature of childhood. But some really have the urge strongly and others don’t.
There might be a small effect, but not much, I suspect.
The first measure, for example - when you close your eyes, many people just see black. For me it's a fine grey fuzz on a black background.
Others (more unusually) will see the effect with their eyes open: an overlay of fine fuzz over everything.
That's not something culturally determined.
I didn’t get that question. Perhaps they vary it for each “player”. I see grey fuzz.
My son has just taken it and got 5, 9, 4 and 7. I don’t think he’s that unusual (though I’m not surprised by the second score).
I was:
Subscale Possible score range Your score unusual_experiences 0 to 12 points 3.0 cognitive_disorganisation 0 to 11 points 3.0 introvertive_anhedonia 0 to 10 points 2.0 impulsive_nonconformity 0 to 10 points 3.0
"Is the police in Rome just useless? Health and safety Last week me and my girlfriend had our first vacation together, we went to Rome for 4 days.
During these days, despite the heat, we saw a lot of beautiful landmarks and architecture. The food was awesome and we had a BnB right around the corner of the Vatican. Despite this, we will never, ever return.
While walking around near the Pantheon, my girlfriend was accosted by two (slightly drunk) men. First in Italian, then they yelled some vulgar things in English. We walked away but they followed us so I told them to f off and faked a kick to one of them. At that exact moment, a policeman (which my gf later told me was just standing there, seeing the whole thing) comes walking up to ME AND MY GF to tell us to go away in a stern voice, he then talked to the two men calmly and even seemed to joke around with them.
The last day of our stay, my phone was pickpocketed in the metro at Termini. A policeman was standing on the platform when I realized my phone was gone, I asked him for help and in a very broken English he told me ''Bad luck, go make report upstairs''. After finding the railway police office at Termini, where five policeman were sitting around drinking coffee and laughing, I asked for help. They told me to go to a police station outside the station, after which they returned to chatting and laughing with each other. At this point I was getting frustrated but the final straw was when at the police station they asked my why I didn't report it to the railway police... They only let me file a report after I insisted several times.
These experiences have basically ruined a big part of our vacation. So I'm curious if all police in Rome is like this and if so, why..."
The pacemaker is working but under strict instructions from the medics to take it easy for the next 6 weeks as the 2 leads grow heart muscle and become difficult to dislodge
Also DVLA affirm my licence to drive subject to a lifetime of pacemaker checks which is indeed medical practice
Oh, that's good.
I had my first bath tonight and it was wonderful but not sure how my new steely lump will look on the Italian Costa d' Amalfi !!
Quite interesting range of results from those I know who have.
I got 9 on the Cognitive Disorganisation part and 5 on the Introvertive Anhedonia, but low on the other two. Does that mean I have ADD?
I appear to be abnormally normal. It’s almost disappointing. Scores of 2, 3, 1 and 2 for the four tests.
I got a 4 on impulsive_nonconformity, 2 for cognitive_disorganisation, and 1 for the others.
I'd be interested in seeing Leon's scores - high marks for both impulsive_nonconformity and unusual_experiences?
I suspect that cultural and educational factors influence the scores too. Being British I’ve been brought up to avoid hype, so when I saw some of the questions I thought “I don’t do anything that exciting” and “well it’s never quite that intense” (like the question about almost being able to hear your own thoughts). And trying to second guess what they’re looking for brings in some extra bias - eg if you want to feel you are a tortured genius or a natural rebel you might nudge yourself answer questions in a certain way.
The question on instinctively wanting to do the opposite of what everyone else does is interesting. I expect we all have that, it’s a feature of childhood. But some really have the urge strongly and others don’t.
There might be a small effect, but not much, I suspect.
The first measure, for example - when you close your eyes, many people just see black. For me it's a fine grey fuzz on a black background.
Others (more unusually) will see the effect with their eyes open: an overlay of fine fuzz over everything.
That's not something culturally determined.
I didn’t get that question. Perhaps they vary it for each “player”. I see grey fuzz.
My son has just taken it and got 5, 9, 4 and 7. I don’t think he’s that unusual (though I’m not surprised by the second score).
I was:
Subscale Possible score range Your score unusual_experiences 0 to 12 points 3.0 cognitive_disorganisation 0 to 11 points 3.0 introvertive_anhedonia 0 to 10 points 2.0 impulsive_nonconformity 0 to 10 points 3.0
Which is boring.
Mine...was not
unusual_experiences 0 to 12 points: 4 cognitive_disorganisation 0 to 11 points: 11! introvertive_anhedonia 0 to 10 points: 9 impulsive_nonconformity 0 to 10 points: 2
So I'm a cognitively disorganised anhedonic introverted. But at least I'm not a schizophrenic. Well, that's nice.
This would only work if Bertolucci was casting for interregnum Italy. I shall look upwards whilst the light catches my cheekbones. If I had cheekbones. And there was light. Hmmm.
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
But that is the point which the judge has ignored. If he was worth $2.5bn and if he had the $200m in cash with all the nonsense stripped out he was entitled to those interest rates.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
Did Trump raise this as a defence? Did he say, "even if you take out the valuations you think are fraudulent, here is the evidence that I had assets that I didn't tell the bank about that would have satisfied their requirements"?
The judgment in the Trump NY case is remarkable in many respects. I think my favourite paragraph is this:
"The English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) first declared, “To err is human, to forgive is divine.” Defendants apparently are of a different mind. After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies." This is used to justify keeping the Trump Organisation under strict judicial control including an independent director, a retired judge who has to approve expenditure in advance and, of course, the banning of Trump and his children (except Ivenka who got out on a time bar) from being directors or involved.
One frankly wonders how long this organisation can remain solvent under such restrictions. Certainly no lender who reads the judgment is likely to lend Mr Trump funds once again. As current loans become repayable assets will need to be sold to realise them. Even so, the cash flow implications are severe. There are issues that the judgment ignores and rather weirdly so. In particular there is no finding in fact that these various misrepresentations and outright lies actually meant that the covenants were breached. There is no balance sheet exercise on Donald Trump at any point. So we do not know, for example, whether he met the liquid cash requirements without treating his investments in a limited partnership as cash when in fact he was unable to realise the interest without his partners consent. We do not know if the findings about the over valuation of assets meant that Trump was in fact worth less than $2.5bn. It is possible that Trump wanted to show he was much richer but still met the terms of the loan. I think that this will probably form a basis for an appeal. The court has taken "materiality" to mean that that the values were out by more than 10%. I think that is an error and the real materiality is whether or not the covenants were in fact being breached. To put it in simple terms if he was worth $2.5bn is it material that he was claiming to be worth $5-7bn?
Yes, if it meant he was benefitting from lower interest rates.
But that is the point which the judge has ignored. If he was worth $2.5bn and if he had the $200m in cash with all the nonsense stripped out he was entitled to those interest rates.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
Surely the judge wouldn’t come up with an alternative valuation. If you lie and cheap then you are deemed to fraudulently acquired a pecuniary benefit. It doesn’t matter if you were entitled to it anyway… you still obtained it based on fraudulent information
Comments
I remember doing 'Home Economics' at secondary school which was utterly useless when it came to food. We made a "pizza" by smearing tomato puree over half a roll with a spoon then the teacher grilled it for us - she even did the cheese grating - too dangerous for the kids. But I was lucky and learned the basics by helping my mother cook at home.
It's things like that which really make me wonder about diabetes/weight/general problems with people. The cost of the treatment vs. just some basic "Here's how to make some soup or pasta" education at an early age.
But I guess that's not good for GDP.
Not sure how the pacemaker would react !!!!!
Or do they do the subtraction prior to rounding vote share to the nearest whole number?
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/mike-procter-south-africa-s-great-allrounder-dies-aged-77-1421603
But for apartheid, he would surely have been listed alongside Sobers as the greatest all rounder of them all.
Equally, of course, but for apartheid his somewhat older contemporary Basil D'Oliveira might have staked a claim too.
He would still be guilty of some of the other charges such as creating and submitting false documents and conspiracy to do so but the basis on which the financial penalties have been calculated would fall apart.
Who are these judges?
Which meant he benefitted from lower interest rates than he should have paid, enabling him to buy other properties (one part of the fine is the profits from the sale of a property he purchased with these loans) and lower taxes.
Now, if you lie on a mortgage application, don't you get punished? And if you lie to the tax authorities, ditto?
Which is what has happened here.
The spectacular part is the amount, but that's only because Trump's such a chiseller.
After all we pay Judges a lot of money, mainly because they have years of expertise and knowledge, and could earn much more elsewhere. The Daily Mail could just feature it's headline grabbing narratives and do some cheap and cheerful online votes.
But the reason he got these low interest rates was (apart from the incompetence of Deutsch Bank) that he gave a personal guarantee. Which he did.
It was a condition of the guarantee that he had a net worth of $2.5bn. He had to certify this each year in statements of financial condition. These contained many blatant and some truly remarkable lies but did he meet the condition or not? If he did then, as I have said, there are other charges of which he is guilty but the logic of the judgment is that he would have been paying 10% over LIBOR instead of 1-2% over LIBOR.
I think that there is also an error in which the interest rate has been calculated but that is less significant in the context of the judgment.
If you're lucky enough to live near a large supermarket and you have to Stalingrad for a few weeks you can game the yellow stickers section for organic properly raised chicken, or to batch cook stickered mince or something. In reality if you're living in that mode that's the proper option.
I went for organic chicken from Lidl and got decent stock from it but haven't tried the £3.50 chicken, which the more I think about it, is questionable (how can you raise, feed, then slaughter an animal, package, transport it for all of £3.50?)
I got some mince then bulked it out with grated carrot, making a hybrid beef/veg bolognaise, which did seem to work.
I suspect the big impacts will be the possibility that the court mandated monitor who presumably has full access to the firm's books will start digging up more dead bodies. And that the Trump Organization will find it very hard to get credit. The SEC holds a dim view of financial services organisations that don't do their due diligence and the Trump Organization has been found guilty of fraud.
Also, don't neglect resistance training as well as cardio. Increased strength will make that cardio easier, and muscle tissue is energy intensive to maintain so, again, it means you can get away with more of what you like to eat and spend less time pretending to enjoy low calorie yogurts and salads. Having a higher percentage of total body mass consisting of muscle is why blokes tend to find it that much easier to succeed on weight loss programs, and to reach target more rapidly, than women.
Workers Party Of Britain 1.92 / 1.96
Lab 2.22 / 2.36
LD 42 / 50
RefUK 60 / 150
Con 150 / 680
Green 1000
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.224220834
Think how complex his Excel sheets would be! Behold!
To be honest I thought CON might be as low as 5s? Clearly I know nothing.
Excerpt
"When I left home in the mid-seventies for London - the city of the Sex Pistols and The Clash – it was rough and poor, and I lived, for ten years, in a housing co-op flat with a rent of twenty quid a week, next to four railway lines. We furnished the place with stuff we found in skips and jumble sales. We bought our clothes, books, and albums from second hand shops. We stole cutlery from restaurants, from which we would often abscond after eating, and we shoplifted. My school friends and the people I moved with all worked in the arts as photographers, musicians, actors, writers, and so on. We loved our work, but it never occurred to any of us that we would become wealthy or even make much of a living out of what we did. Money was never an animating force; it wasn’t in our lexicon, it was never a possibility.
What motivated us was our work and sex. We were a liberated generation, free, we believed, of hundreds of years of hiding and repression, and we wanted to fuck more than we coveted material things. The only rich people we were aware of were aristocrats who had inherited property and land. Then there were the nouveau rich models, actors and popstars, but even they had trouble holding on to money. They were admired for their creativity and originality rather than their ability to get rich. Growing up, even if you were to come into some money, there was only so much you could buy. There wasn’t so much “stuff” around."
https://hanifkureishi.substack.com/p/money-and-how-it-gets-that-way
Or drink the water without mixing it with a drop of The Good Stuff.
Labour have a 20% majority and have been getting record swings TO them in recent contests. That's not a background in which you expect them to lose.
OK, the Labour candidate has been disowned, but voters are going to be presented with a ballot paper that says Labour on it.
Given how fraudulent were the organisation’s books throughout the period, though, it’s not very clear how Trump is going to effectively make a case against the judgment.
(I still remember being told by a New Yorker that they were cautioned by their well-off parents to always carrry enough money to cover a fix for addicts -- because otherwise the addicts might beat you up when they were mugging you. Practical, perhaps, but not heroic.)
After my first year there, I started teaching in a slum school and, early one evening after work, I was waiting at a rail transit stop, when I was accosted by by three teenage boys. While the two in front distracted me, the third came up behind me and hit me on the head with something, knocking me down. One of them grabbed my wallet -- which didn't have much in it, and the three took off.
I reported it, and the black cop who interviewed me was so embarrassed when he asked me about the race of the attackers -- the neighborhood was about 95 percent black -- that I almost tried to reassure him.
Most of my male friends had similar experiences. Their experience -- and mine -- led me to two unfashionable conclusions: Which is that crime often causes poverty, and that failing to protect a population against the predators in their midst may be a sign of tacit racism.
Which still exists, as anyone familiar with Chicago's crime statistics can tell you. Only now, there is more than a little evidence that at least a few politicians there have learned to work with the drug gangs.
I met a guy once at a Lib Dem conference and got talking.
He worked for one of the major banks in the business loans department.
He took great delight in refusing loans to companies when their financial situation as claimed when applying for the loan differed greatly from their financial situation as declared to the taxman.
"Voting intention from
@WStoneInsight in @Telegraph tomorrow:
Lab 42%
Con 20%
Ref 13%
LD 10%
Grn 8%
SNP 3%
PC 1%
Oth 2%"
https://twitter.com/WStoneInsight/status/1758986851086409794
Like honestly,you can go to California (or stay in London) and do a version of a job you loved, make a packet, do the global leader thing. Probably get a plum role a a tech or finance role with a company that may well shape our future - and not have to worry too much about how anything will look bad in a report as you're a private citizen. Or you can go through the tedium of being an opposition backbencher who might occasionally get to get his moment on a big committee.
I'm not saying he's moneygrabbing. Just he doesn't strike me as the kind of HoC obsessive who'd feel the draw powerful.
"New polling outfit founded by Andrew Hawkins formerly of Comres".
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/18138/whitestone-insight
Are you the most left wing poster here?
What I wan to know is whether the Judge can also sue Trump for defamation. Trump is calling him "crooked" with no basis for that.
I was planning to have a go, but it remembered I had had the offer before in about 2015.
My other shoutout would be for bread machines. My Panasonic Croustina type is wonderful. One of my local treats is a family owned mill with a small chain of half a dozen "corn stores" which has been going since the 19C. It's quite enjoyable buying flour in a shop that sells birdseed and rabbit food and dog treats.
Subscale Possible score range Your score
unusual_experiences 0 to 12 points 3.0
cognitive_disorganisation 0 to 11 points 3.0
introvertive_anhedonia 0 to 10 points 2.0
impulsive_nonconformity 0 to 10 points 3.0
Which is boring.
The English isn't great in this post, but still I found it interesting.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rome/comments/15a3mvc/is_the_police_in_rome_just_useless
"Is the police in Rome just useless?
Health and safety
Last week me and my girlfriend had our first vacation together, we went to Rome for 4 days.
During these days, despite the heat, we saw a lot of beautiful landmarks and architecture. The food was awesome and we had a BnB right around the corner of the Vatican. Despite this, we will never, ever return.
While walking around near the Pantheon, my girlfriend was accosted by two (slightly drunk) men. First in Italian, then they yelled some vulgar things in English. We walked away but they followed us so I told them to f off and faked a kick to one of them. At that exact moment, a policeman (which my gf later told me was just standing there, seeing the whole thing) comes walking up to ME AND MY GF to tell us to go away in a stern voice, he then talked to the two men calmly and even seemed to joke around with them.
The last day of our stay, my phone was pickpocketed in the metro at Termini. A policeman was standing on the platform when I realized my phone was gone, I asked him for help and in a very broken English he told me ''Bad luck, go make report upstairs''. After finding the railway police office at Termini, where five policeman were sitting around drinking coffee and laughing, I asked for help. They told me to go to a police station outside the station, after which they returned to chatting and laughing with each other. At this point I was getting frustrated but the final straw was when at the police station they asked my why I didn't report it to the railway police... They only let me file a report after I insisted several times.
These experiences have basically ruined a big part of our vacation. So I'm curious if all police in Rome is like this and if so, why..."
One assumes an implied "since release from hospital" on that "I had my first bath tonight", unless you were having 2 baths per night
unusual_experiences 0 to 12 points: 4
cognitive_disorganisation 0 to 11 points: 11!
introvertive_anhedonia 0 to 10 points: 9
impulsive_nonconformity 0 to 10 points: 2
So I'm a cognitively disorganised anhedonic introverted. But at least I'm not a schizophrenic. Well, that's nice.
This would only work if Bertolucci was casting for interregnum Italy. I shall look upwards whilst the light catches my cheekbones. If I had cheekbones. And there was light. Hmmm.
"unusual_experiences 0 to 12 points 0.0
cognitive_disorganisation 0 to 11 points 6.0
introvertive_anhedonia 0 to 10 points 4.0
impulsive_nonconformity 0 to 10 points 4.0"
Not sure how typical these results are.
cognitive_disorganisation 0 to 11 points: 8
introvertive_anhedonia 0 to 10 points: 1
impulsive_nonconformity 0 to 10 points: 3
He had as many comebacks as Frank Sinatra.