Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
To speculate, I think it may be an example of the power grab. 'We do it because can'. But, au contraire, it has succeeded in getting Lady Emily T to grab the Cross of St George and dance with it in defence of Merrie England. It's comedy gold from all angles.
In all fairness, Thorners has no apparent issue with the flag of England itself. What she did highlight was the ridiculousness of covering your entire house in England flags and (presumably) creating an eyesore for your neighbours. She was unfairly traduced for that: my wife (and probably most women) think similarly!
What she was saying, rightly or wrongly, was “Look at the type of knuckleheads that vote UKIP”
She didn't actually 'say' anything from my memory, other than "Rochester" (which was where she was campaigning?)
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
To speculate, I think it may be an example of the power grab. 'We do it because can'. But, au contraire, it has succeeded in getting Lady Emily T to grab the Cross of St George and dance with it in defence of Merrie England. It's comedy gold from all angles.
In all fairness, Thorners has no apparent issue with the flag of England itself. What she did highlight was the ridiculousness of covering your entire house in England flags and (presumably) creating an eyesore for your neighbours. She was unfairly traduced for that: my wife (and probably most women) think similarly!
What she was saying, rightly or wrongly, was “Look at the type of knuckleheads that vote UKIP”
She didn't actually 'say' anything from my memory, other than "Rochester" (which was where she was campaigning?)
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
I fear your 'defence' is more political than it is epidemiological. It was a crass thing to do - and what happened was a heck of a lot more than a meal deal in an office.
You are moving your accusation from breaking the law to breaking wisdom criteria.
The key is did he break the law, not was he unwise? If we track back to Johnson it would appear he was both.
I'm not 'moving' - I'm explaining my position as it's been pretty much since the Starmer story broke. Cases can be made for both - however inconvenient it is for you.
There is simply no point in talking about anything to do with Trump or Biden on this site - so I shall stop and post a photo and it’s your fault
In a lifetime of eccentric and unlikely offices this might be one of the best. Sitting on the terrace of a thatched tree-bungalow in the middle of the Tayrona jungle staring down at the distant Caribbean
🔺 BREAKING: Kate Forbes has suggested that Humza Yousaf lacks a “big vision” for Scotland and confirmed that she would likely run again to be leader of the SNP.
His own MSPs challenging his policies in the chamber as well.
Knives are out.
Suspect Forbes is the candidate the unionists fear. Strongly pro independence and pro business. Could mop up a few Tory votes. She needs to handle the same-sex marriage question better but I assume she has figured that out by now.
She’s certainly the Sc*tch experts favoured candidate.
🔺 BREAKING: Kate Forbes has suggested that Humza Yousaf lacks a “big vision” for Scotland and confirmed that she would likely run again to be leader of the SNP.
His own MSPs challenging his policies in the chamber as well.
Knives are out.
Suspect Forbes is the candidate the unionists fear. Strongly pro independence and pro business. Could mop up a few Tory votes. She needs to handle the same-sex marriage question better but I assume she has figured that out by now.
She’s certainly the Sc*tch experts favoured candidate.
With all this stuff about scotch experts… where’s the single malt?
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
To speculate, I think it may be an example of the power grab. 'We do it because can'. But, au contraire, it has succeeded in getting Lady Emily T to grab the Cross of St George and dance with it in defence of Merrie England. It's comedy gold from all angles.
In all fairness, Thorners has no apparent issue with the flag of England itself. What she did highlight was the ridiculousness of covering your entire house in England flags and (presumably) creating an eyesore for your neighbours. She was unfairly traduced for that: my wife (and probably most women) think similarly!
What she was saying, rightly or wrongly, was “Look at the type of knuckleheads that vote UKIP”
She didn't actually 'say' anything from my memory, other than "Rochester" (which was where she was campaigning?)
Posting the picture is saying something.
On the Nike 'flag' - the problem is that although it is shaped like the English flag, it looks nothing like it when coloured like that. It's just an elongated plus symbol; meaningless.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
You just answered your own question. They are commercial entities and are trying to make money by accommodating the latest trends.
As for the purple England shirt-gate. Isn't that acknowledging the 1966 England strip. Like when the Arse played in their (rather fetching) 2005-6 strip marking their final season at Highbury.
It’s not the purple shirt that politicians are criticising, but the changed colours of the flag on the collar.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Russian efforts to help him electorally are proven fact, aren't they?
Are they?
This is a genuine question
I've realised that my belief that Putin always wants Trump to win is based on me hearing a lot of people say this, rather than seeing actual evidence. That is probably my fault for not looking hard enough. I am hoping you may be able to show me it (I am perfectly willing to believe it: I can see arguments why Putin would favour Trump, I can also see arguments where he might favour Biden)
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
Just a designer having fun, apparently.
Looks very C of E-ish to my eyes, if anything. Archbish gear and all that.
It’s just unnecessarily antagonistic and as you say a designer “having fun” without realising that designs need to either serve a function or look appealing and this does neither.
The point about a national team football shirt is that it’s part of representing the nation so is clearly one place where national symbols are appropriate and shouldn’t be messed with.
One thing it’s not however is “woke” as it’s not any sort of symbol for any movement and so attacking it on that reasoning is a bit silly.
Unfortunately the BBC had Peter Shilton on trying to be the anti-change spokesman this morning and it wouldn’t have taken Maradonna to tie him in knots. Was a bit mean or a bit sneaky using him as one side of the debate.
You'd think buying the fucking thing was compulsory the way people are carrying on.
In fairness, it's rather more than that, isn't it? It's the jersey of the national team in the national sport. The iconography matters. Whether or not one buys the shirt oneself.
🔺 BREAKING: Kate Forbes has suggested that Humza Yousaf lacks a “big vision” for Scotland and confirmed that she would likely run again to be leader of the SNP.
His own MSPs challenging his policies in the chamber as well.
Knives are out.
Suspect Forbes is the candidate the unionists fear. Strongly pro independence and pro business. Could mop up a few Tory votes. She needs to handle the same-sex marriage question better but I assume she has figured that out by now.
She’s certainly the Sc*tch experts favoured candidate.
With all this stuff about scotch experts… where’s the single malt?
The single malt*s*, the currently opened ones, are in the cupboard, with the gin.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
The beer doesn't matter. There was nothing to say he was not entitled to consume a beer with his meal in the rules, although he would be unwise to drive afterwards.
That is a complete red herring.
Wasn't it the coffees that did for those two women on Primrose Hill?
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Russian efforts to help him electorally are proven fact, aren't they?
Are they?
This is a genuine question
I've realised that my belief that Putin always wants Trump to win is based on me hearing a lot of people say this, rather than seeing actual evidence. That is probably my fault for not looking hard enough. I am hoping you may be able to show me it (I am perfectly willing to believe it: I can see arguments why Putin would favour Trump, I can also see arguments where he might favour Biden)
The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation submitted the first in their five-volume 1,313-page report in July 2019. The committee concluded that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed". The first volume also concluded that the assessment was "proper", learning from analysts that there was "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions". The final and fifth volume, which was the result of three years of investigations, was released in August 2020,[8] ending one of the United States "highest-profile congressional inquiries".[9][10] The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump's own advisers.[9]
🔺 BREAKING: Kate Forbes has suggested that Humza Yousaf lacks a “big vision” for Scotland and confirmed that she would likely run again to be leader of the SNP.
His own MSPs challenging his policies in the chamber as well.
Knives are out.
Suspect Forbes is the candidate the unionists fear. Strongly pro independence and pro business. Could mop up a few Tory votes. She needs to handle the same-sex marriage question better but I assume she has figured that out by now.
She’s certainly the Sc*tch experts favoured candidate.
With all this stuff about scotch experts… where’s the single malt?
I yield to a true Scotch expert (she must be, she’s made a shitload of money out of it), though I suspect she pronounces it ‘Scatch’. It’s the SNP’s fault, again!
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
You just answered your own question. They are commercial entities and are trying to make money by accommodating the latest trends.
As for the purple England shirt-gate. Isn't that acknowledging the 1966 England strip. Like when the Arse played in their (rather fetching) 2005-6 strip marking their final season at Highbury.
It’s not the purple shirt that politicians are criticising, but the changed colours of the flag on the collar.
🔺 BREAKING: Kate Forbes has suggested that Humza Yousaf lacks a “big vision” for Scotland and confirmed that she would likely run again to be leader of the SNP.
His own MSPs challenging his policies in the chamber as well.
Knives are out.
Suspect Forbes is the candidate the unionists fear. Strongly pro independence and pro business. Could mop up a few Tory votes. She needs to handle the same-sex marriage question better but I assume she has figured that out by now.
She’s certainly the Sc*tch experts favoured candidate.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
You just answered your own question. They are commercial entities and are trying to make money by accommodating the latest trends.
As for the purple England shirt-gate. Isn't that acknowledging the 1966 England strip. Like when the Arse played in their (rather fetching) 2005-6 strip marking their final season at Highbury.
I think the 1966 link has been debunked as bollocks. When rumblings of annoyance started they tried to say that the designer took inspiration from the 1966 squad’s training kit until it was pointed out that that kit was blue with red and white trim not blue, pink and purple and red.
And frankly when has anyone thought, “you know what’s going to really inspire the team, the fans and drive sales? A tiny reference to a training kit that nobody except the surviving one from the team and twelve fans remember.”
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
I'm not sure that this storm in the smallest of teacups has anything to do with "woke" at all. As SKS notes the real scandal is the cost of the damn things. Not that I'll be buying one anyway.
🔺 BREAKING: Kate Forbes has suggested that Humza Yousaf lacks a “big vision” for Scotland and confirmed that she would likely run again to be leader of the SNP.
His own MSPs challenging his policies in the chamber as well.
Knives are out.
Suspect Forbes is the candidate the unionists fear. Strongly pro independence and pro business. Could mop up a few Tory votes. She needs to handle the same-sex marriage question better but I assume she has figured that out by now.
She’s certainly the Sc*tch experts favoured candidate.
With all this stuff about scotch experts… where’s the single malt?
I yield to a true Scotch expert (she must be, she’s made a shitload of money out of it), though I suspect she pronounces it ‘Scatch’. It’s the SNP’s fault, again!
SNP? mid-20th century?!
But the lady is a fiction writer, apparently, so that explains it.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
I'm not sure that this storm in the smallest of teacups has anything to do with "woke" at all. As SKS notes the real scandal is the cost of the damn things. Not that I'll be buying one anyway.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
You just answered your own question. They are commercial entities and are trying to make money by accommodating the latest trends.
As for the purple England shirt-gate. Isn't that acknowledging the 1966 England strip. Like when the Arse played in their (rather fetching) 2005-6 strip marking their final season at Highbury.
I think the 1966 link has been debunked as bollocks. When rumblings of annoyance started they tried to say that the designer took inspiration from the 1966 squad’s training kit until it was pointed out that that kit was blue with red and white trim not blue, pink and purple and red.
And frankly when has anyone thought, “you know what’s going to really inspire the team, the fans and drive sales? A tiny reference to a training kit that nobody except the surviving one from the team and twelve fans remember.”
Just as long as you realise you are Nike's wet dream by contributing to the continued discussion around it.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Russian efforts to help him electorally are proven fact, aren't they?
Are they?
This is a genuine question
I've realised that my belief that Putin always wants Trump to win is based on me hearing a lot of people say this, rather than seeing actual evidence. That is probably my fault for not looking hard enough. I am hoping you may be able to show me it (I am perfectly willing to believe it: I can see arguments why Putin would favour Trump, I can also see arguments where he might favour Biden)
There was an official investigation and report. I'd link it if I was in my study.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Bullshit.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
I'm not sure that this storm in the smallest of teacups has anything to do with "woke" at all. As SKS notes the real scandal is the cost of the damn things. Not that I'll be buying one anyway.
Sir Keir also criticises the flag colour change doesn’t he?
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
You mean the territory he seized while Obama was president? The man who mocked Mitt Romney for saying that Russia was the biggest threat.
Trump had four YEARS to, ah, encourage Putin to withdraw.
Can you do one of your bar charts to show Russia's territorial gains under Obama, Trump and Biden respectively?
Compliance!
That's a good start. You need to break the bars down into which US President was in office when the territory was occupied.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Russian efforts to help him electorally are proven fact, aren't they?
Are they?
This is a genuine question
I've realised that my belief that Putin always wants Trump to win is based on me hearing a lot of people say this, rather than seeing actual evidence. That is probably my fault for not looking hard enough. I am hoping you may be able to show me it (I am perfectly willing to believe it: I can see arguments why Putin would favour Trump, I can also see arguments where he might favour Biden)
What is true is the Russians sowed discord - particularly on Twitter - ahead of the 2016 election. They created fake news stories, and then they promoted them. So, they created stories about police brutality and made sure that African Americans saw them. And they created stories about an invasion on the Southern border and promoted them to those concerned about immigration.
Their goal is to make the US less united. It's why they boosted Brexit pre-the referendum, and the boosted FBPE (or whatever it was) afterwards. The goal - as always - is disunity.
We know this because there have been a number of excellent investigative pieces that involved interviews with people working in troll farms.
Now, did the troll farms specifically promote Trump over Clinton? Probably. Putin knew that Trump was hostile to NATO and to the EU in general, and that fitted with Russian strategic goals.
Edit to add: We also know that Trump and Putin met with no interpreters or other diplomatic staff present and which ensured to notes or minutes were kept, which is an extraordinary breech of diplomatic protocol.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Russian efforts to help him electorally are proven fact, aren't they?
Are they?
This is a genuine question
I've realised that my belief that Putin always wants Trump to win is based on me hearing a lot of people say this, rather than seeing actual evidence. That is probably my fault for not looking hard enough. I am hoping you may be able to show me it (I am perfectly willing to believe it: I can see arguments why Putin would favour Trump, I can also see arguments where he might favour Biden)
The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation submitted the first in their five-volume 1,313-page report in July 2019. The committee concluded that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed". The first volume also concluded that the assessment was "proper", learning from analysts that there was "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions". The final and fifth volume, which was the result of three years of investigations, was released in August 2020,[8] ending one of the United States "highest-profile congressional inquiries".[9][10] The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump's own advisers.[9]
Fair enough, and thankyou. That looks pretty compelling
My sense is that Putin doesn't so much favour any particular politicians or causes in the west, rather he wants to sow division and disunity any way he can, especially on issues like race. Hence his support for Brexit AND Scottish indy
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Complete drivel. Biden should be more aggressive, but that isn't anywhere close to completely screwing Ukraine entirely. And Trump is on record as withholding aid for Ukraine and the Republicans have been blocking the latest aid bill in Congress.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
To speculate, I think it may be an example of the power grab. 'We do it because can'. But, au contraire, it has succeeded in getting Lady Emily T to grab the Cross of St George and dance with it in defence of Merrie England. It's comedy gold from all angles.
In all fairness, Thorners has no apparent issue with the flag of England itself. What she did highlight was the ridiculousness of covering your entire house in England flags and (presumably) creating an eyesore for your neighbours. She was unfairly traduced for that: my wife (and probably most women) think similarly!
What she was saying, rightly or wrongly, was “Look at the type of knuckleheads that vote UKIP”
She didn't actually 'say' anything from my memory, other than "Rochester" (which was where she was campaigning?)
I think she labelled the picture 'Out and about in Rochester' or some such. The British Right must have been going through one of its 'We luv the working class' phases at the time (in between slamming them as ugly, obese benefit scroungers for whom a bit of sterilization wouldn't go amiss).
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Bullshit.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
How can you defend a policy of prolonging the war while ruling out a strategy to actually win it?
The Biden administration, like Obama before him, pinned its hopes on changing Putin's 'calculus' by making the war too costly so that he would give up. It's been an utter failure and the price has been paid in Ukrainian lives.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
You just answered your own question. They are commercial entities and are trying to make money by accommodating the latest trends.
As for the purple England shirt-gate. Isn't that acknowledging the 1966 England strip. Like when the Arse played in their (rather fetching) 2005-6 strip marking their final season at Highbury.
I think the 1966 link has been debunked as bollocks. When rumblings of annoyance started they tried to say that the designer took inspiration from the 1966 squad’s training kit until it was pointed out that that kit was blue with red and white trim not blue, pink and purple and red.
And frankly when has anyone thought, “you know what’s going to really inspire the team, the fans and drive sales? A tiny reference to a training kit that nobody except the surviving one from the team and twelve fans remember.”
Just as long as you realise you are Nike's wet dream by contributing to the continued discussion around it.
I am not their wet dream, I would be their wet dream if I was posting about it and then went and bought the shirt (never have and never will buy and England football shirt). I am more of a useful idiot by increasing their publicity.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Russian efforts to help him electorally are proven fact, aren't they?
Are they?
This is a genuine question
I've realised that my belief that Putin always wants Trump to win is based on me hearing a lot of people say this, rather than seeing actual evidence. That is probably my fault for not looking hard enough. I am hoping you may be able to show me it (I am perfectly willing to believe it: I can see arguments why Putin would favour Trump, I can also see arguments where he might favour Biden)
What is true is the Russians sowed discord - particularly on Twitter - ahead of the 2016 election. They created fake news stories, and then they promoted them. So, they created stories about police brutality and made sure that African Americans saw them. And they created stories about an invasion on the Southern border and promoted them to those concerned about immigration.
Their goal is to make the US less united. It's why they boosted Brexit pre-the referendum, and the boosted FBPE (or whatever it was) afterwards. The goal - as always - is disunity.
We know this because there have been a number of excellent investigative pieces that involved interviews with people working in troll farms.
Now, did the troll farms specifically promote Trump over Clinton? Probably. Putin knew that Trump was hostile to NATO and to the EU in general, and that fitted with Russian strategic goals.
Edit to add: We also know that Trump and Putin met with no interpreters or other diplomatic staff present and which ensured to notes or minutes were kept, which is an extraordinary breech of diplomatic protocol.
Yes, I have just posted, saying almost exactly that!
What do you do when the court's only sanction - to imprison and fine someone for contempt of court - is entirely ineffective, because the individual in question quite likes the idea of being a martyr?
This is the problem the Irish courts are grappling with, having imprisoned Enoch Burke for several months, at considerable cost and little effect.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
I'm not sure that this storm in the smallest of teacups has anything to do with "woke" at all. As SKS notes the real scandal is the cost of the damn things. Not that I'll be buying one anyway.
Sir Keir also criticises the flag colour change doesn’t he?
Yes, he says why change it, and then points out how expensive they are. I agree there's no reason to change it but I do struggle to give two shits about it either way and I also struggle to see anything "woke" in it.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
I fear your 'defence' is more political than it is epidemiological. It was a crass thing to do - and what happened was a heck of a lot more than a meal deal in an office.
You are moving your accusation from breaking the law to breaking wisdom criteria.
The key is did he break the law, not was he unwise? If we track back to Johnson it would appear he was both.
I'm not 'moving' - I'm explaining my position as it's been pretty much since the Starmer story broke. Cases can be made for both - however inconvenient it is for you.
If Starmer broke the rules he should have gone, but according to Durham Constabulary after investigation they decided he didn't break the rules. The Met later explained that they didn't investigate Johnson's presence at parties from which they prosecuted minions. Johnson was only innocent by dint of not being investigated.
But your comparison of Beergate and Partygate as an equal breach is a nonsense. It's like you complaining how unfair it is my kitten has done a whoopsie in your flower bed whilst your two dozen pack-hounds are crapping all over my lawn.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Bullshit.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
How can you defend a policy of prolonging the war while ruling out a strategy to actually win it?
The Biden administration, like Obama before him, pinned its hopes on changing Putin's 'calculus' by making the war too costly so that he would give up. It's been an utter failure and the price has been paid in Ukrainian lives.
Biden has been supporting more aid to Ukraine, it's the Republicans in Congress who have been blocking it, at Trump's urging.
And as long as Ukraine is willing to fight then supporting them is more moral than not supporting them.
Not supporting them will lead to their defeat. The war continuing is more moral than their defeat.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Complete drivel. Biden should be more aggressive, but that isn't anywhere close to completely screwing Ukraine entirely. And Trump is on record as withholding aid for Ukraine and the Republicans have been blocking the latest aid bill in Congress.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
To speculate, I think it may be an example of the power grab. 'We do it because can'. But, au contraire, it has succeeded in getting Lady Emily T to grab the Cross of St George and dance with it in defence of Merrie England. It's comedy gold from all angles.
In all fairness, Thorners has no apparent issue with the flag of England itself. What she did highlight was the ridiculousness of covering your entire house in England flags and (presumably) creating an eyesore for your neighbours. She was unfairly traduced for that: my wife (and probably most women) think similarly!
What she was saying, rightly or wrongly, was “Look at the type of knuckleheads that vote UKIP”
She didn't actually 'say' anything from my memory, other than "Rochester" (which was where she was campaigning?)
Maybe, but the inference was ‘no wonder this is going to be a UKIP win when people like this live here’ it would be quite strange to not be able to see that
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
I'm not sure that this storm in the smallest of teacups has anything to do with "woke" at all. As SKS notes the real scandal is the cost of the damn things. Not that I'll be buying one anyway.
AP (via Seattle Times) - Kentucky’s loss to unheralded Oakland crushes millions of March Madness brackets
[University of} Kentucky’s [men's basketball team's] 80-76 loss to Oakland [University, of Michigan] on Thursday night didn’t just end a bunch of perfect brackets. It all but ruined many when it comes to the big picture.
The third-seeded Wildcats were picked in 95% of brackets in the ESPN Tournament Challenge to beat the 14th-seeded Golden Grizzlies. What’s more, 74.21% had Kentucky making the Sweet 16, 28.84% reaching the Final Four and 6.5% winning the national championship. . . .
SSI - Note that UK is long-standing, famous basketball power in US collegiate athletics; further note that Kentucky is one of THE top basket-ball states in the US (along with Indiana and North Carolina).
Also note that the NCAA Division 1 men's basketball tournament - aka "March Madness" is one of the premier sporting AND betting events in the USA.
As noted above, most folks who filled out a March Madness bracket, predicting which teams will win specific games and thus moving on to next stage, assumed that UK Wildcats were a cinch to win their first round game. Opps!
Should also be noted, that one of the great charms of March Madness is stunning upsets such as this one.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
You just answered your own question. They are commercial entities and are trying to make money by accommodating the latest trends.
As for the purple England shirt-gate. Isn't that acknowledging the 1966 England strip. Like when the Arse played in their (rather fetching) 2005-6 strip marking their final season at Highbury.
I think the 1966 link has been debunked as bollocks. When rumblings of annoyance started they tried to say that the designer took inspiration from the 1966 squad’s training kit until it was pointed out that that kit was blue with red and white trim not blue, pink and purple and red.
And frankly when has anyone thought, “you know what’s going to really inspire the team, the fans and drive sales? A tiny reference to a training kit that nobody except the surviving one from the team and twelve fans remember.”
Just as long as you realise you are Nike's wet dream by contributing to the continued discussion around it.
I am not their wet dream, I would be their wet dream if I was posting about it and then went and bought the shirt (never have and never will buy and England football shirt). I am more of a useful idiot by increasing their publicity.
Never understood buying team strip. Especially the stuff loaded with adverts. Shouldn’t they pay people a percentage to wear that?
That being said, bought some for god-children. Cost about as much as the annual subs for joining a rowing club.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Bullshit.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
How can you defend a policy of prolonging the war while ruling out a strategy to actually win it?
The Biden administration, like Obama before him, pinned its hopes on changing Putin's 'calculus' by making the war too costly so that he would give up. It's been an utter failure and the price has been paid in Ukrainian lives.
Biden has been supporting more aid to Ukraine, it's the Republicans in Congress who have been blocking it, at Trump's urging.
And as long as Ukraine is willing to fight then supporting them is more moral than not supporting them.
Not supporting them will lead to their defeat. The war continuing is more moral than their defeat.
He's been supporting a policy of insufficient military aid with strings attached to how it is used. It is not a policy designed to bring victory and never has been.
He even redirected ammunition to Israel that had been promised to Ukraine.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
I'm not sure that this storm in the smallest of teacups has anything to do with "woke" at all. As SKS notes the real scandal is the cost of the damn things. Not that I'll be buying one anyway.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
I fear your 'defence' is more political than it is epidemiological. It was a crass thing to do - and what happened was a heck of a lot more than a meal deal in an office.
You are moving your accusation from breaking the law to breaking wisdom criteria.
The key is did he break the law, not was he unwise? If we track back to Johnson it would appear he was both.
I'm not 'moving' - I'm explaining my position as it's been pretty much since the Starmer story broke. Cases can be made for both - however inconvenient it is for you.
If Starmer broke the rules he should have gone, but according to Durham Constabulary after investigation they decided he didn't break the rules. The Met later explained that they didn't investigate Johnson's presence at parties from which they prosecuted minions. Johnson was only innocent by dint of not being investigated.
But your comparison of Beergate and Partygate as an equal breach is a nonsense. It's like you complaining how unfair it is my kitten has done a whoopsie in your flower bed whilst your two dozen pack-hounds are crapping all over my lawn.
I refer you to my previous comment re. the police. But then you probably felt plebgate was fair as it was one of your hated Tories who was victim...
Of course the comparison is not ridiculous; and as a state, I'd argue that Currygate was worse in practice, for the reasons I've given (and you ignore).
I'm gonna do some actual WORK while I fight off the hummingbirds, so this is my final thought on Brazengate
Whether it's Biden OR Trump, America is proving itself unreliable, isolationist and supremely self interested. Of course America has always acted in its own interest but in the past it was also so powerful it was still a vital ally, a mighty but half interested America was better than no America at all
This is changing as relative American power dwindles, and is worsened by the likes of Biden and Trump (or maybe they are just themselves caught in the logic of American decline)
Either way, I agree with @TimS. Europe must unite to defend itself. I speak as a Leaver, but this is way more important than trading alliances and customs unions. We can't rely on the USA any more so if Europe wants to be free and prosperous then we will have to do it for ourselves. We need to tool up and man the battlements
Probably a few core countries should unite around one nuclear deterrent
10% of people wasting their vote on the Liberal who cannot win. Does Joe Public realise this is now FPP?
You might just as well comment on the 27% of people wasting their vote on the Conservative, who also cannot win. The joys of FPTP.
Of course if Khan gets 51% it doesn't matter what the system is, whether FTPT, AV or anything in between, so the 10% LD, 8% Green and the others are entirely logical.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Bullshit.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
How can you defend a policy of prolonging the war while ruling out a strategy to actually win it?
The Biden administration, like Obama before him, pinned its hopes on changing Putin's 'calculus' by making the war too costly so that he would give up. It's been an utter failure and the price has been paid in Ukrainian lives.
Biden has been supporting more aid to Ukraine, it's the Republicans in Congress who have been blocking it, at Trump's urging.
And as long as Ukraine is willing to fight then supporting them is more moral than not supporting them.
Not supporting them will lead to their defeat. The war continuing is more moral than their defeat.
He's been supporting a policy of insufficient military aid with strings attached to how it is used. It is not a policy designed to bring victory and never has been.
He even redirected ammunition to Israel that had been promised to Ukraine.
How on earth can a ceasefire take place when Russia and China combine to vote against the US resolution for a sustainable ceasefire
The world as Sky reports is ' fractured'
Then again, it's not clear that a ceasefire would happen even if the UN passed a resolution. Unfortunately.
What it does do is psychological- does the Israeli government really want to find itself on the same side as Russia and China. It's all a bit "Bibi, are we the baddies?"
1/ It's been a grim week for the Government. After losing in the Lords with its Rwanda Bill, it’s dealt a further blow as Labour’s lead in the polls rises by five to 23.
🔴 Lab 47% (+4) 🔵 Con 24% (-1) ⚪ Ref 11% (-1) 🟠 LD 9% (NC) 🟢 Green 6% (NC) 🟡 SNP 2% (NC)
How on earth can a ceasefire take place when Russia and China combine to vote against the US resolution for a sustainable ceasefire
The world as Sky reports is ' fractured'
Then again, it's not clear that a ceasefire would happen even if the UN passed a resolution. Unfortunately.
What it does do is psychological- does the Israeli government really want to find itself on the same side as Russia and China. It's all a bit "Bibi, are we the baddies?"
15 times more people killed by Israel in the last 6 months than Hamas killed in the last 16 YEARS (even including 7/10).
How on earth can a ceasefire take place when Russia and China combine to vote against the US resolution for a sustainable ceasefire
The world as Sky reports is ' fractured'
The US resolution did NOT call for a sustained ceasefire.
Actually, it did:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/21/us-un-ceasefire-gaza ...The new version of the draft resolution circulated on Thursday morning “determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire to protect civilians on all sides, allow for the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance, and alleviate humanitarian suffering, and towards that end unequivocally supports ongoing international diplomatic efforts to secure such a ceasefire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages”...
You can argue that it's hedged with conditions - which it is - but it's quite a shift in U.S. policy and should not have been vetoed.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Bullshit.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
How can you defend a policy of prolonging the war while ruling out a strategy to actually win it?
The Biden administration, like Obama before him, pinned its hopes on changing Putin's 'calculus' by making the war too costly so that he would give up. It's been an utter failure and the price has been paid in Ukrainian lives.
Biden has been supporting more aid to Ukraine, it's the Republicans in Congress who have been blocking it, at Trump's urging.
And as long as Ukraine is willing to fight then supporting them is more moral than not supporting them.
Not supporting them will lead to their defeat. The war continuing is more moral than their defeat.
He's been supporting a policy of insufficient military aid with strings attached to how it is used. It is not a policy designed to bring victory and never has been.
He even redirected ammunition to Israel that had been promised to Ukraine.
As opposed to a policy of no military aid at all?
Reckon that Putin sends his F-Troop of (apparently) beginner bots to invest PB, as part of their training?
Certainly he's already got sufficient puppeteers already on her, including allegedly/ostensibly pro-UKR Trumpists.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
I fear your 'defence' is more political than it is epidemiological. It was a crass thing to do - and what happened was a heck of a lot more than a meal deal in an office.
You are moving your accusation from breaking the law to breaking wisdom criteria.
The key is did he break the law, not was he unwise? If we track back to Johnson it would appear he was both.
I'm not 'moving' - I'm explaining my position as it's been pretty much since the Starmer story broke. Cases can be made for both - however inconvenient it is for you.
If Starmer broke the rules he should have gone, but according to Durham Constabulary after investigation they decided he didn't break the rules. The Met later explained that they didn't investigate Johnson's presence at parties from which they prosecuted minions. Johnson was only innocent by dint of not being investigated.
But your comparison of Beergate and Partygate as an equal breach is a nonsense. It's like you complaining how unfair it is my kitten has done a whoopsie in your flower bed whilst your two dozen pack-hounds are crapping all over my lawn.
I refer you to my previous comment re. the police. But then you probably felt plebgate was fair as it was one of your hated Tories who was victim...
Of course the comparison is not ridiculous; and as a state, I'd argue that Currygate was worse in practice, for the reasons I've given (and you ignore).
I find Andrew Mitchell a particularly agreeable one- nation Tory, so of course if the police lied, as was proven they were wrong and he was guilty of nothing. I also mentioned earlier that I believe Sunak's prosecution was a travesty. So other than my partisan despising of the venal Johnson I have been rather balanced I believe.
Starmer's travails were confected (by Ivo Delingpole and Ric Holden) nonsense almost a year and then six months after Partygate 1 and 2. The rules had changed. Johnson also wrote the rules he wilfully ignored. Allegra Stratten joked about the absurdity of the situation, oh and let's not forget Johnson's defence was he couldn't discriminate between a work event and a party with party poppers, balloons, a karaoke machine and suitcases full of wines and spirits.
I don't wish to be rude, but perhaps you need training in how to avoid being taken in by charlatans.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Bullshit.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
How can you defend a policy of prolonging the war while ruling out a strategy to actually win it?
The Biden administration, like Obama before him, pinned its hopes on changing Putin's 'calculus' by making the war too costly so that he would give up. It's been an utter failure and the price has been paid in Ukrainian lives.
Biden has been supporting more aid to Ukraine, it's the Republicans in Congress who have been blocking it, at Trump's urging.
And as long as Ukraine is willing to fight then supporting them is more moral than not supporting them.
Not supporting them will lead to their defeat. The war continuing is more moral than their defeat.
He's been supporting a policy of insufficient military aid with strings attached to how it is used. It is not a policy designed to bring victory and never has been.
He even redirected ammunition to Israel that had been promised to Ukraine.
As opposed to a policy of no military aid at all?
William argues that abandoning Ukraine to Putin's mercies - against their express wishes - is the moral thing to do.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Bullshit.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
How can you defend a policy of prolonging the war while ruling out a strategy to actually win it?
The Biden administration, like Obama before him, pinned its hopes on changing Putin's 'calculus' by making the war too costly so that he would give up. It's been an utter failure and the price has been paid in Ukrainian lives.
Biden has been supporting more aid to Ukraine, it's the Republicans in Congress who have been blocking it, at Trump's urging.
And as long as Ukraine is willing to fight then supporting them is more moral than not supporting them.
Not supporting them will lead to their defeat. The war continuing is more moral than their defeat.
He's been supporting a policy of insufficient military aid with strings attached to how it is used. It is not a policy designed to bring victory and never has been.
He even redirected ammunition to Israel that had been promised to Ukraine.
As opposed to a policy of no military aid at all?
Reckon that Putin sends his F-Troop of (apparently) beginner bots to invest PB, as part of their training?
Certainly he's already got sufficient puppeteers already on her, including allegedly/ostensibly pro-UKR Trumpists.
What do you think about Biden redirecting ammunition to Israel that had been designated for Ukraine? You're curiously silent on Israel.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Bullshit.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
How can you defend a policy of prolonging the war while ruling out a strategy to actually win it?
The Biden administration, like Obama before him, pinned its hopes on changing Putin's 'calculus' by making the war too costly so that he would give up. It's been an utter failure and the price has been paid in Ukrainian lives.
Biden has been supporting more aid to Ukraine, it's the Republicans in Congress who have been blocking it, at Trump's urging.
And as long as Ukraine is willing to fight then supporting them is more moral than not supporting them.
Not supporting them will lead to their defeat. The war continuing is more moral than their defeat.
He's been supporting a policy of insufficient military aid with strings attached to how it is used. It is not a policy designed to bring victory and never has been.
He even redirected ammunition to Israel that had been promised to Ukraine.
How on earth can a ceasefire take place when Russia and China combine to vote against the US resolution for a sustainable ceasefire
The world as Sky reports is ' fractured'
The US resolution did NOT call for a sustained ceasefire.
Actually, it did:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/21/us-un-ceasefire-gaza ...The new version of the draft resolution circulated on Thursday morning “determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire to protect civilians on all sides, allow for the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance, and alleviate humanitarian suffering, and towards that end unequivocally supports ongoing international diplomatic efforts to secure such a ceasefire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages”...
You can argue that it's hedged with conditions - which it is - but it's quite a shift in U.S. policy and should not have been vetoed.
Oh, well! Think of ALL the previous Gaza resolutions tabled at the UN that the USA DID veto!
How on earth can a ceasefire take place when Russia and China combine to vote against the US resolution for a sustainable ceasefire
The world as Sky reports is ' fractured'
Then again, it's not clear that a ceasefire would happen even if the UN passed a resolution. Unfortunately.
What it does do is psychological- does the Israeli government really want to find itself on the same side as Russia and China. It's all a bit "Bibi, are we the baddies?"
Israel wasn't in favour of the US putting the resolution on the table in the first place. They apparently said they "could live with it".
In any event, it was dead on arrival, because it called for the immediate release of the hostages. Inevitably, all sorts of people - including those who are supposedly well-meaning - ignore that bit, as they did when the ICJ called for it to happen in January.
How on earth can a ceasefire take place when Russia and China combine to vote against the US resolution for a sustainable ceasefire
The world as Sky reports is ' fractured'
Then again, it's not clear that a ceasefire would happen even if the UN passed a resolution. Unfortunately.
What it does do is psychological- does the Israeli government really want to find itself on the same side as Russia and China. It's all a bit "Bibi, are we the baddies?"
15 times more people killed by Israel in the last 6 months than Hamas killed in the last 16 YEARS (even including 7/10).
Are you including all the LGBT Gazans Hamas have thrown off rooftops in that time, or do you not count them as people?
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Bullshit.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
How can you defend a policy of prolonging the war while ruling out a strategy to actually win it?
The Biden administration, like Obama before him, pinned its hopes on changing Putin's 'calculus' by making the war too costly so that he would give up. It's been an utter failure and the price has been paid in Ukrainian lives.
Biden has been supporting more aid to Ukraine, it's the Republicans in Congress who have been blocking it, at Trump's urging.
And as long as Ukraine is willing to fight then supporting them is more moral than not supporting them.
Not supporting them will lead to their defeat. The war continuing is more moral than their defeat.
He's been supporting a policy of insufficient military aid with strings attached to how it is used. It is not a policy designed to bring victory and never has been.
He even redirected ammunition to Israel that had been promised to Ukraine.
Which is still billions more aid than Trump.
You're missing the point. If it's only enough to prolong the war but not to win it, what good does it do other than to help Russia become more battle-hardened while modernising its military-industrial complex, and ensuring that a lot of Ukrainians die in the process?
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Bullshit.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
How can you defend a policy of prolonging the war while ruling out a strategy to actually win it?
The Biden administration, like Obama before him, pinned its hopes on changing Putin's 'calculus' by making the war too costly so that he would give up. It's been an utter failure and the price has been paid in Ukrainian lives.
Biden has been supporting more aid to Ukraine, it's the Republicans in Congress who have been blocking it, at Trump's urging.
And as long as Ukraine is willing to fight then supporting them is more moral than not supporting them.
Not supporting them will lead to their defeat. The war continuing is more moral than their defeat.
He's been supporting a policy of insufficient military aid with strings attached to how it is used. It is not a policy designed to bring victory and never has been.
He even redirected ammunition to Israel that had been promised to Ukraine.
If that's insufficient then you think less than insufficient is an improvement?
You've gone full Saturday morning troll now. "Surrender is moral to save Ukrainian lives" is as offensive and wrong when you say it as when DJ21 or any other troll does.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Trump saying he would force Ukraine to end the war is a pretty good piece of evidence.
If Biden is not willing to help Ukraine actually win (defined as pushing Russia out of all of Ukraine) then Trump's position is more moral.
Bullshit.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
How can you defend a policy of prolonging the war while ruling out a strategy to actually win it?
The Biden administration, like Obama before him, pinned its hopes on changing Putin's 'calculus' by making the war too costly so that he would give up. It's been an utter failure and the price has been paid in Ukrainian lives.
Biden has been supporting more aid to Ukraine, it's the Republicans in Congress who have been blocking it, at Trump's urging.
And as long as Ukraine is willing to fight then supporting them is more moral than not supporting them.
Not supporting them will lead to their defeat. The war continuing is more moral than their defeat.
He's been supporting a policy of insufficient military aid with strings attached to how it is used. It is not a policy designed to bring victory and never has been.
He even redirected ammunition to Israel that had been promised to Ukraine.
Which is still billions more aid than Trump.
You're missing the point. If it's only enough to prolong the war but not to win it, what good does it do other than to help Russia become more battle-hardened while modernising its military-industrial complex, and ensuring that a lot of Ukrainians die in the process?
Prolonging the war by supporting Ukraine > surrender and letting Ukraine lose.
On topic: To me, the most interesting finding in that table is that only one politician, Andy Burnham, has a positive favorability rating. Which, sadly, reminds me of similar findings from the US about our national politicians.
How on earth can a ceasefire take place when Russia and China combine to vote against the US resolution for a sustainable ceasefire
The world as Sky reports is ' fractured'
Then again, it's not clear that a ceasefire would happen even if the UN passed a resolution. Unfortunately.
What it does do is psychological- does the Israeli government really want to find itself on the same side as Russia and China. It's all a bit "Bibi, are we the baddies?"
15 times more people killed by Israel in the last 6 months than Hamas killed in the last 16 YEARS (even including 7/10).
Are you including all the LGBT Gazans Hamas have thrown off rooftops in that time, or do you not count them as people?
Of course I am, but the FACT remains, Israel have still murdered TENS of THOUSANDs more people than Hamas have since 2008 (per the figures I have to hand). Hopefully you consider Gazans as people too.
How on earth can a ceasefire take place when Russia and China combine to vote against the US resolution for a sustainable ceasefire
The world as Sky reports is ' fractured'
Then again, it's not clear that a ceasefire would happen even if the UN passed a resolution. Unfortunately.
What it does do is psychological- does the Israeli government really want to find itself on the same side as Russia and China. It's all a bit "Bibi, are we the baddies?"
15 times more people killed by Israel in the last 6 months than Hamas killed in the last 16 YEARS (even including 7/10).
Are you including all the LGBT Gazans Hamas have thrown off rooftops in that time, or do you not count them as people?
Of course I am, but the FACT remains, Israel have still murdered TENS of THOUSANDs more people than Hamas have since 2008 (per the figures I have to hand). Hopefully you consider Gazans as people too.
How on earth can a ceasefire take place when Russia and China combine to vote against the US resolution for a sustainable ceasefire
The world as Sky reports is ' fractured'
Then again, it's not clear that a ceasefire would happen even if the UN passed a resolution. Unfortunately.
What it does do is psychological- does the Israeli government really want to find itself on the same side as Russia and China. It's all a bit "Bibi, are we the baddies?"
15 times more people killed by Israel in the last 6 months than Hamas killed in the last 16 YEARS (even including 7/10).
Are you including all the LGBT Gazans Hamas have thrown off rooftops in that time, or do you not count them as people?
Of course I am, but the FACT remains, Israel have still murdered TENS of THOUSANDs more people than Hamas have since 2008 (per the figures I have to hand). Hopefully you consider Gazans as people too.
"Pre-war" 24th January 2008 to 6th Oct 2023:
Palestinians dead 6,337 Israelis dead 310
Since 7th Oct 2023:
Palestinians dead 31,988 Israelis dead 1,485
The correct answer was "no", then.
6,337 obviously does not include Palestinians murdered by their own leadership.
Some of you will be jealous, but I think that current American political scandals are more entertaining that the current UK scandals.
The Loser is the obvious example, but the problems of this Democratic senator from New Jersey might run a distant second: "In 2015, Menendez was indicted on federal corruption charges; the jury was unable to reach a verdict, and the charges were dropped in 2018. In April 2018, the United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics "severely admonished" Menendez for accepting gifts from donor Salomon Melgen without obtaining committee approval, for failing to disclose certain gifts, and for using his position as a senator to advance Melgen's interests.
In September 2023, Menendez was again indicted on federal corruption charges that he aided and provided sensitive information to the government of Egypt.[2][3] He stepped down as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but refused to resign from the Senate and repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, despite calls to resign from numerous state and congressional Democrats, including 30 of his Senate colleagues. In an October 2023 indictment, Menendez was formally charged with conspiracy to act as a foreign agent of the Egyptian government;[4] a superseding indictment in January 2024 also accused Menendez of working for the government of Qatar." (Links omitted.) source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Menendez
Among other things, the senator is accused of accepting cars, cash, and, in an old-fashioned touch, gold bars.
On topic: To me, the most interesting finding in that table is that only one politician, Andy Burnham, has a positive favorability rating. Which, sadly, reminds me of similar findings from the US about our national politicians.
So I conclude, tentatively, that Burnham may be doing that well because he, like those governors, is not on the national stage.
I'd also add: He has no real opposition locally. He tries, with some success, not to be too tribal. His patch - Greater Manchester - is doing rather better than the country as a whole. He makes a big thing of being proud to be Mancunian, and talks up Greater Mamchester at every opportunity. National politicians don't really seem to do that (Boris did.)
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
I fear your 'defence' is more political than it is epidemiological. It was a crass thing to do - and what happened was a heck of a lot more than a meal deal in an office.
You are moving your accusation from breaking the law to breaking wisdom criteria.
The key is did he break the law, not was he unwise? If we track back to Johnson it would appear he was both.
I'm not 'moving' - I'm explaining my position as it's been pretty much since the Starmer story broke. Cases can be made for both - however inconvenient it is for you.
If Starmer broke the rules he should have gone, but according to Durham Constabulary after investigation they decided he didn't break the rules. The Met later explained that they didn't investigate Johnson's presence at parties from which they prosecuted minions. Johnson was only innocent by dint of not being investigated.
But your comparison of Beergate and Partygate as an equal breach is a nonsense. It's like you complaining how unfair it is my kitten has done a whoopsie in your flower bed whilst your two dozen pack-hounds are crapping all over my lawn.
I refer you to my previous comment re. the police. But then you probably felt plebgate was fair as it was one of your hated Tories who was victim...
Of course the comparison is not ridiculous; and as a state, I'd argue that Currygate was worse in practice, for the reasons I've given (and you ignore).
I find Andrew Mitchell a particularly agreeable one- nation Tory, so of course if the police lied, as was proven they were wrong and he was guilty of nothing. I also mentioned earlier that I believe Sunak's prosecution was a travesty. So other than my partisan despising of the venal Johnson I have been rather balanced I believe.
Starmer's travails were confected (by Ivo Delingpole and Ric Holden) nonsense almost a year and then six months after Partygate 1 and 2. The rules had changed. Johnson also wrote the rules he wilfully ignored. Allegra Stratten joked about the absurdity of the situation, oh and let's not forget Johnson's defence was he couldn't discriminate between a work event and a party with party poppers, balloons, a karaoke machine and suitcases full of wines and spirits.
I don't wish to be rude, but perhaps you need training in how to avoid being taken in by charlatans.
You say you don't mean to be rude, whilst being rude. I might suggest that you take your own 'advice'.
Also, you fail to address my points.
As for Mitchell, there's no 'of course, if the police lied'. They lied. It was a travesty of justice.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
You just answered your own question. They are commercial entities and are trying to make money by accommodating the latest trends.
As for the purple England shirt-gate. Isn't that acknowledging the 1966 England strip. Like when the Arse played in their (rather fetching) 2005-6 strip marking their final season at Highbury.
I think the 1966 link has been debunked as bollocks. When rumblings of annoyance started they tried to say that the designer took inspiration from the 1966 squad’s training kit until it was pointed out that that kit was blue with red and white trim not blue, pink and purple and red.
And frankly when has anyone thought, “you know what’s going to really inspire the team, the fans and drive sales? A tiny reference to a training kit that nobody except the surviving one from the team and twelve fans remember.”
Just as long as you realise you are Nike's wet dream by contributing to the continued discussion around it.
I am not their wet dream, I would be their wet dream if I was posting about it and then went and bought the shirt (never have and never will buy and England football shirt). I am more of a useful idiot by increasing their publicity.
Never understood buying team strip. Especially the stuff loaded with adverts. Shouldn’t they pay people a percentage to wear that?
That being said, bought some for god-children. Cost about as much as the annual subs for joining a rowing club.
Spoilt kids who are bought the full kit, as opposed to just a football top, risk being called FKWs (Full Kit Wankers).
How on earth can a ceasefire take place when Russia and China combine to vote against the US resolution for a sustainable ceasefire
The world as Sky reports is ' fractured'
Then again, it's not clear that a ceasefire would happen even if the UN passed a resolution. Unfortunately.
What it does do is psychological- does the Israeli government really want to find itself on the same side as Russia and China. It's all a bit "Bibi, are we the baddies?"
15 times more people killed by Israel in the last 6 months than Hamas killed in the last 16 YEARS (even including 7/10).
Are you including all the LGBT Gazans Hamas have thrown off rooftops in that time, or do you not count them as people?
Of course I am, but the FACT remains, Israel have still murdered TENS of THOUSANDs more people than Hamas have since 2008 (per the figures I have to hand). Hopefully you consider Gazans as people too.
"Pre-war" 24th January 2008 to 6th Oct 2023:
Palestinians dead 6,337 Israelis dead 310
Since 7th Oct 2023:
Palestinians dead 31,988 Israelis dead 1,485
Your naivety is staggering,. Do you honestly think for a minute if the "scoreboard" was reversed, Hamas would stop?
I assume we've done last night's council byelections already?
But just in case, they were:
Lincolnshire: Tory hold but with huge churn - Con down 27%, Lab down 30%, Lincs independents and Lib Dems both contesting for first time and getting high 20s.
Not sure the 4th (which was an IND defence) has reported yet.
These continue to show a familiar pattern: Conservatives dropping just about everywhere, Lib Dems outperforming national polls and Labour underperforming national polls.
I assume we've done last night's council byelections already?
But just in case, they were:
Lincolnshire: Tory hold but with huge churn - Con down 27%, Lab down 30%, Lincs independents and Lib Dems both contesting for first time and getting high 20s.
Not sure the 4th (which was an IND defence) has reported yet.
These continue to show a familiar pattern: Conservatives dropping just about everywhere, Lib Dems outperforming national polls and Labour underperforming national polls.
Comments
In a lifetime of eccentric and unlikely offices this might be one of the best. Sitting on the terrace of a thatched tree-bungalow in the middle of the Tayrona jungle staring down at the distant Caribbean
Hummingbirds flit about
This is a genuine question
I've realised that my belief that Putin always wants Trump to win is based on me hearing a lot of people say this, rather than seeing actual evidence. That is probably my fault for not looking hard enough. I am hoping you may be able to show me it (I am perfectly willing to believe it: I can see arguments why Putin would favour Trump, I can also see arguments where he might favour Biden)
The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation submitted the first in their five-volume 1,313-page report in July 2019. The committee concluded that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed". The first volume also concluded that the assessment was "proper", learning from analysts that there was "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions". The final and fifth volume, which was the result of three years of investigations, was released in August 2020,[8] ending one of the United States "highest-profile congressional inquiries".[9][10] The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump's own advisers.[9]
It’s the SNP’s fault, again!
(P.S. I claim not to be a Scotch expert)
And frankly when has anyone thought, “you know what’s going to really inspire the team, the fans and drive sales? A tiny reference to a training kit that nobody except the surviving one from the team and twelve fans remember.”
But the lady is a fiction writer, apparently, so that explains it.
And you have the disgrace of having a Ukrainian flag avatar while posting such vile nonsense.
Their goal is to make the US less united. It's why they boosted Brexit pre-the referendum, and the boosted FBPE (or whatever it was) afterwards. The goal - as always - is disunity.
We know this because there have been a number of excellent investigative pieces that involved interviews with people working in troll farms.
Now, did the troll farms specifically promote Trump over Clinton? Probably. Putin knew that Trump was hostile to NATO and to the EU in general, and that fitted with Russian strategic goals.
Edit to add:
We also know that Trump and Putin met with no interpreters or other diplomatic staff present and which ensured to notes or minutes were kept, which is an extraordinary breech of diplomatic protocol.
My sense is that Putin doesn't so much favour any particular politicians or causes in the west, rather he wants to sow division and disunity any way he can, especially on issues like race. Hence his support for Brexit AND Scottish indy
Anything that fragments the west is good
The Biden administration, like Obama before him, pinned its hopes on changing Putin's 'calculus' by making the war too costly so that he would give up. It's been an utter failure and the price has been paid in Ukrainian lives.
This is the problem the Irish courts are grappling with, having imprisoned Enoch Burke for several months, at considerable cost and little effect.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2024/0322/1439420-enoch-burke/
But your comparison of Beergate and Partygate as an equal breach is a nonsense. It's like you complaining how unfair it is my kitten has done a whoopsie in your flower bed whilst your two dozen pack-hounds are crapping all over my lawn.
And as long as Ukraine is willing to fight then supporting them is more moral than not supporting them.
Not supporting them will lead to their defeat. The war continuing is more moral than their defeat.
AP (via Seattle Times) - Kentucky’s loss to unheralded Oakland crushes millions of March Madness brackets
[University of} Kentucky’s [men's basketball team's] 80-76 loss to Oakland [University, of Michigan] on Thursday night didn’t just end a bunch of perfect brackets. It all but ruined many when it comes to the big picture.
The third-seeded Wildcats were picked in 95% of brackets in the ESPN Tournament Challenge to beat the 14th-seeded Golden Grizzlies. What’s more, 74.21% had Kentucky making the Sweet 16, 28.84% reaching the Final Four and 6.5% winning the national championship. . . .
SSI - Note that UK is long-standing, famous basketball power in US collegiate athletics; further note that Kentucky is one of THE top basket-ball states in the US (along with Indiana and North Carolina).
Also note that the NCAA Division 1 men's basketball tournament - aka "March Madness" is one of the premier sporting AND betting events in the USA.
As noted above, most folks who filled out a March Madness bracket, predicting which teams will win specific games and thus moving on to next stage, assumed that UK Wildcats were a cinch to win their first round game. Opps!
Should also be noted, that one of the great charms of March Madness is stunning upsets such as this one.
That being said, bought some for god-children. Cost about as much as the annual subs for joining a rowing club.
He even redirected ammunition to Israel that had been promised to Ukraine.
Women shave their heads in front of parliament for Gaza.
https://x.com/onlinepaleng/status/1770725552753623295?s=61
Of course the comparison is not ridiculous; and as a state, I'd argue that Currygate was worse in practice, for the reasons I've given (and you ignore).
Whether it's Biden OR Trump, America is proving itself unreliable, isolationist and supremely self interested. Of course America has always acted in its own interest but in the past it was also so powerful it was still a vital ally, a mighty but half interested America was better than no America at all
This is changing as relative American power dwindles, and is worsened by the likes of Biden and Trump (or maybe they are just themselves caught in the logic of American decline)
Either way, I agree with @TimS. Europe must unite to defend itself. I speak as a Leaver, but this is way more important than trading alliances and customs unions. We can't rely on the USA any more so if Europe wants to be free and prosperous then we will have to do it for ourselves. We need to tool up and man the battlements
Probably a few core countries should unite around one nuclear deterrent
The world as Sky reports is ' fractured'
https://x.com/attackingfooty/status/1769717967401451912?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://news.sky.com/story/israel-gaza-hamas-latest-middle-east-live-updates-sky-news-blog-12978800
Which makes it seem like they want Israel to surrender.
What it does do is psychological- does the Israeli government really want to find itself on the same side as Russia and China. It's all a bit "Bibi, are we the baddies?"
1/ It's been a grim week for the Government. After losing in the Lords with its Rwanda Bill, it’s dealt a further blow as Labour’s lead in the polls rises by five to 23.
🔴 Lab 47% (+4)
🔵 Con 24% (-1)
⚪ Ref 11% (-1)
🟠 LD 9% (NC)
🟢 Green 6% (NC)
🟡 SNP 2% (NC)
https://twitter.com/wethinkpolling/status/1771192628324769888
Obviously, this can carry on for months, and probably will. But it's not going to carry on well, is it?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/21/us-un-ceasefire-gaza
...The new version of the draft resolution circulated on Thursday morning “determines the imperative of an immediate and sustained ceasefire to protect civilians on all sides, allow for the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance, and alleviate humanitarian suffering, and towards that end unequivocally supports ongoing international diplomatic efforts to secure such a ceasefire in connection with the release of all remaining hostages”...
You can argue that it's hedged with conditions - which it is - but it's quite a shift in U.S. policy and should not have been vetoed.
Certainly he's already got sufficient puppeteers already on her, including allegedly/ostensibly pro-UKR Trumpists.
Starmer's travails were confected (by Ivo Delingpole and Ric Holden) nonsense almost a year and then six months after Partygate 1 and 2. The rules had changed. Johnson also wrote the rules he wilfully ignored. Allegra Stratten joked about the absurdity of the situation, oh and let's not forget Johnson's defence was he couldn't discriminate between a work event and a party with party poppers, balloons, a karaoke machine and suitcases full of wines and spirits.
I don't wish to be rude, but perhaps you need training in how to avoid being taken in by charlatans.
As far as I can tell.
In the radical VI alternative #Wisdom Index from @DeltapollUK the Tories are expected to win 31% in #GE2024
Con 31%
Labour 43%
LibDems 13%
Others 13%
https://x.com/asfarasdelgados/status/1770879259432681651?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
In any event, it was dead on arrival, because it called for the immediate release of the hostages. Inevitably, all sorts of people - including those who are supposedly well-meaning - ignore that bit, as they did when the ICJ called for it to happen in January.
You've gone full Saturday morning troll now. "Surrender is moral to save Ukrainian lives" is as offensive and wrong when you say it as when DJ21 or any other troll does.
NEW THREAD
In contrast, almost all US state governors have positive approval ratings, as this 2023 article shows: https://www.multistate.us/insider/2023/8/4/decoding-2023-gubernatorial-approval-ratings (There is a later Morning Consult study, behind their pay wall. I don't think it shows any great changes.)
So I conclude, tentatively, that Burnham may be doing that well because he, like those governors, is not on the national stage.
"Pre-war" 24th January 2008 to 6th Oct 2023:
Palestinians dead 6,337
Israelis dead 310
Since 7th Oct 2023:
Palestinians dead 31,988
Israelis dead 1,485
Casualties of war aren't murdered.
6,337 obviously does not include Palestinians murdered by their own leadership.
The Loser is the obvious example, but the problems of this Democratic senator from New Jersey might run a distant second: "In 2015, Menendez was indicted on federal corruption charges; the jury was unable to reach a verdict, and the charges were dropped in 2018. In April 2018, the United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics "severely admonished" Menendez for accepting gifts from donor Salomon Melgen without obtaining committee approval, for failing to disclose certain gifts, and for using his position as a senator to advance Melgen's interests.
In September 2023, Menendez was again indicted on federal corruption charges that he aided and provided sensitive information to the government of Egypt.[2][3] He stepped down as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but refused to resign from the Senate and repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, despite calls to resign from numerous state and congressional Democrats, including 30 of his Senate colleagues. In an October 2023 indictment, Menendez was formally charged with conspiracy to act as a foreign agent of the Egyptian government;[4] a superseding indictment in January 2024 also accused Menendez of working for the government of Qatar."
(Links omitted.)
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Menendez
Among other things, the senator is accused of accepting cars, cash, and, in an old-fashioned touch, gold bars.
He has no real opposition locally.
He tries, with some success, not to be too tribal.
His patch - Greater Manchester - is doing rather better than the country as a whole.
He makes a big thing of being proud to be Mancunian, and talks up Greater Mamchester at every opportunity. National politicians don't really seem to do that (Boris did.)
Also, you fail to address my points.
As for Mitchell, there's no 'of course, if the police lied'. They lied. It was a travesty of justice.
https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trumps-social-media-company-to-go-public-potentially-netting-him-3bn-13099909
Probably too late to rescue him in his fraud case.
Also, there is some question about whether he can be involved with its management given Engoron's ruling.