Another good walk today, 43km, and I've got just beyond Pamplona to one of its suburbs called Villava. This leaves me with only about 63km left, but quite a bit of climbing as I get into the Pyrenees
It felt a shame not to linger longer in Pamplona itself. It's a beautiful city, full of great places to eat. But I have been here before, and I'll be back in the next few days. I made contact today with the daughter of a lovely lady on my mail round
She lives very near Pamplona, so I've decided to come straight back here (hopefully by public transport) after I've finished the Camino. She seemed on the phone to be just as kind and sweet as her Mum. She'll come and get me from Pamplona and I'll stay a night or two at her place, before heading on to San Sebastian
I'm in a rather nice, but quite pricey, hotel tonight. Probably pricey because the only room left was a junior suite on the top floor with a terrace and a "massage shower"
Dinner at the hotel restaurant is more reasonably priced. I'm having seafood rice to start followed by grilled cuttlefish. A bottle of local red, which is very nice indeed, is included in the 16€ set menu price
They didn't give me a wine glass so I'm drinking the wine from a 400ml water glass
You should really turn your travel notes into an annotated route map. I find it gives another dimension to pictures to associate them with their places on a map.
Another good walk today, 43km, and I've got just beyond Pamplona to one of its suburbs called Villava. This leaves me with only about 63km left, but quite a bit of climbing as I get into the Pyrenees
It felt a shame not to linger longer in Pamplona itself. It's a beautiful city, full of great places to eat. But I have been here before, and I'll be back in the next few days. I made contact today with the daughter of a lovely lady on my mail round
She lives very near Pamplona, so I've decided to come straight back here (hopefully by public transport) after I've finished the Camino. She seemed on the phone to be just as kind and sweet as her Mum. She'll come and get me from Pamplona and I'll stay a night or two at her place, before heading on to San Sebastian
I'm in a rather nice, but quite pricey, hotel tonight. Probably pricey because the only room left was a junior suite on the top floor with a terrace and a "massage shower"
Dinner at the hotel restaurant is more reasonably priced. I'm having seafood rice to start followed by grilled cuttlefish. A bottle of local red, which is very nice indeed, is included in the 16€ set menu price
They didn't give me a wine glass so I'm drinking the wine from a 400ml water glass
You should really turn your travel notes into an annotated route map. I find it gives another dimension to pictures to associate them with their places on a map.
Indeed. I just spent a few minutes poking around on google maps near where they are.
Another good walk today, 43km, and I've got just beyond Pamplona to one of its suburbs called Villava. This leaves me with only about 63km left, but quite a bit of climbing as I get into the Pyrenees
It felt a shame not to linger longer in Pamplona itself. It's a beautiful city, full of great places to eat. But I have been here before, and I'll be back in the next few days. I made contact today with the daughter of a lovely lady on my mail round
She lives very near Pamplona, so I've decided to come straight back here (hopefully by public transport) after I've finished the Camino. She seemed on the phone to be just as kind and sweet as her Mum. She'll come and get me from Pamplona and I'll stay a night or two at her place, before heading on to San Sebastian
I'm in a rather nice, but quite pricey, hotel tonight. Probably pricey because the only room left was a junior suite on the top floor with a terrace and a "massage shower"
Dinner at the hotel restaurant is more reasonably priced. I'm having seafood rice to start followed by grilled cuttlefish. A bottle of local red, which is very nice indeed, is included in the 16€ set menu price
They didn't give me a wine glass so I'm drinking the wine from a 400ml water glass
You should really turn your travel notes into an annotated route map. I find it gives another dimension to pictures to associate them with their places on a map.
Indeed. I just spent a few minutes poking around on google maps near where they are.
Another good walk today, 43km, and I've got just beyond Pamplona to one of its suburbs called Villava. This leaves me with only about 63km left, but quite a bit of climbing as I get into the Pyrenees
It felt a shame not to linger longer in Pamplona itself. It's a beautiful city, full of great places to eat. But I have been here before, and I'll be back in the next few days. I made contact today with the daughter of a lovely lady on my mail round
She lives very near Pamplona, so I've decided to come straight back here (hopefully by public transport) after I've finished the Camino. She seemed on the phone to be just as kind and sweet as her Mum. She'll come and get me from Pamplona and I'll stay a night or two at her place, before heading on to San Sebastian
I'm in a rather nice, but quite pricey, hotel tonight. Probably pricey because the only room left was a junior suite on the top floor with a terrace and a "massage shower"
Dinner at the hotel restaurant is more reasonably priced. I'm having seafood rice to start followed by grilled cuttlefish. A bottle of local red, which is very nice indeed, is included in the 16€ set menu price
They didn't give me a wine glass so I'm drinking the wine from a 400ml water glass
You should really turn your travel notes into an annotated route map. I find it gives another dimension to pictures to associate them with their places on a map.
Indeed. I just spent a few minutes poking around on google maps near where they are.
Stalker.
Next time I'll slip a AirTag in their bag, that'll make it much easier.
Can we recreate the UN Mandate of Palestine? It would be reasonable to place it under the stewardship of a Security Council member that can be trusted to be neutral between both Jewish and Muslim communities (China seems like an obvious choice) until such time as both parties get together on a power-sharing arrangement.
I don't think it worked out last time that was tried...
I've just finished read 'A Line in the Sand', which goes into a bit of detail around the Imperialist wrangling between Britain and France over the ME and what comes across in the book is that the British were in way over their heads in the Mandate of Palestine and really had no clue what to do about it.
There are surely so many layers of mistake and regret that it's almost impossible to peel them all back to find any point of departure from which you might expect a better solution to have arisen.
With Northern Ireland, you can maybe squint hard and point at some point between 1785 and 1805 where things might have changed for the good, and turned out well.
How far do you have to go back to find something similar in the history of Palestine? Obviously before Mandatory Palestine. And before San Remo, before the Balfour Declaration, before Sykes-Picot, clearly. How about before the First Aliyah? Before the repopulation the Sanjak of Jerulsalem as a bulwark against the Khedivate of Egypt? Before the Beys? The Mamluks? And on and on and on into the depths of history.
But, no. They are where they are. Things need to move on from here, from where they are now. Historical inquiry might help understand some of the grievances but it doesn't point a way to the future.
Another good walk today, 43km, and I've got just beyond Pamplona to one of its suburbs called Villava. This leaves me with only about 63km left, but quite a bit of climbing as I get into the Pyrenees
It felt a shame not to linger longer in Pamplona itself. It's a beautiful city, full of great places to eat. But I have been here before, and I'll be back in the next few days. I made contact today with the daughter of a lovely lady on my mail round
She lives very near Pamplona, so I've decided to come straight back here (hopefully by public transport) after I've finished the Camino. She seemed on the phone to be just as kind and sweet as her Mum. She'll come and get me from Pamplona and I'll stay a night or two at her place, before heading on to San Sebastian
I'm in a rather nice, but quite pricey, hotel tonight. Probably pricey because the only room left was a junior suite on the top floor with a terrace and a "massage shower"
Dinner at the hotel restaurant is more reasonably priced. I'm having seafood rice to start followed by grilled cuttlefish. A bottle of local red, which is very nice indeed, is included in the 16€ set menu price
They didn't give me a wine glass so I'm drinking the wine from a 400ml water glass
You should really turn your travel notes into an annotated route map. I find it gives another dimension to pictures to associate them with their places on a map.
Indeed. I just spent a few minutes poking around on google maps near where they are.
Stalker.
Next time I'll slip a AirTag in their bag, that'll make it much easier.
My mum has an airtag in my backpack. I had to find a new battery for it in Burgos. She got very concerned by the low battery warnings
He knows going to jail for a few hours will only boost him with the Cult I guess.
Joe Walsh, a super anti-Trump conservative is also super free speech, and reckons if Trump is put in jail due to a gag order violation he will win re-election, and he opposes the orders as violating Trump's speech.
I don't really understand that level of belief in 'free' speech, due to not being American I suppose, because even if the specific gag orders Trump is under are seen to be wrong, what if he was directly threatening witnesses, no ambiguity? Courts being able to protect witnesses or proceedings to ensure a fair trial is also a right, why would that go out the window?
The MAGA crowd think that but a jail sentence would be the final blow that sends Independents to Biden
Any 'jail' sentence will just be Trump hanging out with the secret service detail, no prison guards or other prisoners would have any access to him and the whole thing would be a circus.
I remain very confident he will never see a day in any kind of prison.
Even if convicted there will be years of appeals and they won't put him inside (or whatever pseudo-jail arrangement they need to come up with), and assuming he has not been re-elected President I would not be surprised to see him physically deterioriate quickly as the really serious trials cannot be put off any longer. He'll be 78, not in great shape, under tremendous stress, and facing very serious jailtime, and even his political sway would reduce after a second loss (assuming his intended campaign of violence and state interference in that event does not succeed).
The NY is still about crimes, but even if convicted may not result in a jail sentence, so as stressed as he will be about it he can handle it just about.
I suspect any convictions will disappear in the Supreme Court in any case. Stick him in prison and you're about a night from civil war anyway. Regardless it will be tit for tat from here. They'll go gunning for Clinton, Biden, Obama etc Grim times ahead for the States
This is a state crime. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction.
That's why it's the only one to move forward (Georgia has got wrapped up in vexatious federal powers lawsuits).
I don’t know much about the case, but why do the details of the supposed ‘encounter’ matter? Surely it’s about the money paid or not paid? Isn’t the use of her testimony just about embarrassing Trump?
Can we recreate the UN Mandate of Palestine? It would be reasonable to place it under the stewardship of a Security Council member that can be trusted to be neutral between both Jewish and Muslim communities (China seems like an obvious choice) until such time as both parties get together on a power-sharing arrangement.
I don't think it worked out last time that was tried...
I've just finished read 'A Line in the Sand', which goes into a bit of detail around the Imperialist wrangling between Britain and France over the ME and what comes across in the book is that the British were in way over their heads in the Mandate of Palestine and really had no clue what to do about it.
Finding out the details on things generally shows those involved were not in as masterful command of a situation as they or history may have imagined.
Having established a Jewish national home via the Balfour declaration we then denied Jewish refugees from the Nazis sanctuary both before and after the war. Its like we wanted for both sides to hate us.
'We are busily hammering a much-divided Middle East into a hostile unanimty.'
I don’t know much about the case, but why do the details of the supposed ‘encounter’ matter? Surely it’s about the money paid or not paid? Isn’t the use of her testimony just about embarrassing Trump?
No - it's about whether it happened (first) and whether he paid her hush money (second) and whether he forged business records to conceal the payment (fourth) and whether that was done to gain an advantage in the election (fifth).
Long chain of reasoning that needs to hang together there...
Can we recreate the UN Mandate of Palestine? It would be reasonable to place it under the stewardship of a Security Council member that can be trusted to be neutral between both Jewish and Muslim communities (China seems like an obvious choice) until such time as both parties get together on a power-sharing arrangement.
I don't think it worked out last time that was tried...
I've just finished read 'A Line in the Sand', which goes into a bit of detail around the Imperialist wrangling between Britain and France over the ME and what comes across in the book is that the British were in way over their heads in the Mandate of Palestine and really had no clue what to do about it.
There are surely so many layers of mistake and regret that it's almost impossible to peel them all back to find any point of departure from which you might expect a better solution to have arisen.
With Northern Ireland, you can maybe squint hard and point at some point between 1785 and 1805 where things might have changed for the good, and turned out well.
How far do you have to go back to find something similar in the history of Palestine? Obviously before Mandatory Palestine. And before San Remo, before the Balfour Declaration, before Sykes-Picot, clearly. How about before the First Aliyah? Before the repopulation the Sanjak of Jerulsalem as a bulwark against the Khedivate of Egypt? Before the Beys? The Mamluks? And on and on and on into the depths of history.
But, no. They are where they are. Things need to move on from here, from where they are now. Historical inquiry might help understand some of the grievances but it doesn't point a way to the future.
Stuff like this is circulating on tiktok.
"To eliminate any doubts, the primary goal was to ethnically cleanse Palestinians and grab the land."
Looking forward to the vitriolic response from Daily Mail to this:
"At Sulkava prison in Finland, I stood on the edge of a lake where, in the summer, prisoners fished for their dinner and foraged in the woodland for mushrooms and lingonberries. “Being here and able to cook for myself brings me a sense of normality, dignity and self-sufficiency,” one prisoner told me."
Appetising, delicious food served up to prisoners? It works for the Nordic countries
Teaching them how to cook for when they get out is not a small thing. Not every prisoner is a PB aficionado who can discourse learnedly on this hot sauce or that vegan recipe.
I agree. I was being flippant.
Uk prisons are a disgrace.
Oh, you didn't come over as flippant at all - just savagely ironic. And rightly so.
I thought teaching people to cook was violently middle class?
I recall the outrage when Delia published a book starting with how to cook an egg.
My mum gave it to me when I was a student. I needed it.
I don’t know much about the case, but why do the details of the supposed ‘encounter’ matter? Surely it’s about the money paid or not paid? Isn’t the use of her testimony just about embarrassing Trump?
No - it's about whether it happened (first) and whether he paid her hush money (second) and whether he forged business records to conceal the payment (fourth) and whether that was done to gain an advantage in the election (fifth).
Long chain of reasoning that needs to hang together there...
If he paid her hush money and it didn't happen surely that could still be fraud?
I don’t know much about the case, but why do the details of the supposed ‘encounter’ matter? Surely it’s about the money paid or not paid? Isn’t the use of her testimony just about embarrassing Trump?
Looking forward to the vitriolic response from Daily Mail to this:
"At Sulkava prison in Finland, I stood on the edge of a lake where, in the summer, prisoners fished for their dinner and foraged in the woodland for mushrooms and lingonberries. “Being here and able to cook for myself brings me a sense of normality, dignity and self-sufficiency,” one prisoner told me."
Appetising, delicious food served up to prisoners? It works for the Nordic countries
Teaching them how to cook for when they get out is not a small thing. Not every prisoner is a PB aficionado who can discourse learnedly on this hot sauce or that vegan recipe.
I agree. I was being flippant.
Uk prisons are a disgrace.
Oh, you didn't come over as flippant at all - just savagely ironic. And rightly so.
I thought teaching people to cook was violently middle class?
I recall the outrage when Delia published a book starting with how to cook an egg.
My mum gave it to me when I was a student. I needed it.
Looking forward to the vitriolic response from Daily Mail to this:
"At Sulkava prison in Finland, I stood on the edge of a lake where, in the summer, prisoners fished for their dinner and foraged in the woodland for mushrooms and lingonberries. “Being here and able to cook for myself brings me a sense of normality, dignity and self-sufficiency,” one prisoner told me."
Appetising, delicious food served up to prisoners? It works for the Nordic countries
Teaching them how to cook for when they get out is not a small thing. Not every prisoner is a PB aficionado who can discourse learnedly on this hot sauce or that vegan recipe.
I agree. I was being flippant.
Uk prisons are a disgrace.
Oh, you didn't come over as flippant at all - just savagely ironic. And rightly so.
I thought teaching people to cook was violently middle class?
I recall the outrage when Delia published a book starting with how to cook an egg.
My mum gave it to me when I was a student. I needed it.
Sounds like something Trump might say....
Now that is absolutely gross.
I did also have a very basic Penguin book, and an old rationing-era MiniFood booklet. All great basic stuff.
Can you summarise the salacious bits first please 🙏
It was missionary, unprotected, and brief.
That's no fun.
(Which by the sounds of it is also an accurate summary of Ms Daniel's experience.)
Many of these details are not super necessary to the case of course, but since Trump denies any sexual encounter took place at all it has to be gotten into since the jury will need to weigh the credibility of the parties about what happened, and thus why the payoffs occurred.
Has he considered dropping his trousers to demonstrate his penis doesn't look like a mushroom?
If not, why not?
There's a popular strain of pailocybe cubensis called Penis Envy which looks exactly like a penis, which might confuse the issue.
Can you summarise the salacious bits first please 🙏
It was missionary, unprotected, and brief.
That's no fun.
(Which by the sounds of it is also an accurate summary of Ms Daniel's experience.)
Many of these details are not super necessary to the case of course, but since Trump denies any sexual encounter took place at all it has to be gotten into since the jury will need to weigh the credibility of the parties about what happened, and thus why the payoffs occurred.
Has he considered dropping his trousers to demonstrate his penis doesn't look like a mushroom?
If not, why not?
There's a popular strain of pailocybe cubensis called Penis Envy which looks exactly like a penis, which might confuse the issue.
I don’t know much about the case, but why do the details of the supposed ‘encounter’ matter? Surely it’s about the money paid or not paid? Isn’t the use of her testimony just about embarrassing Trump?
Which is why the judge - and the defence - placed limits on her testimony, which she crossed to some extent. What could, and couldn’t be presented as evidence (not just the encounter) was extensively litigated pre-trial.
It’s notable the defence didn’t object much as she was giving evidence, and the judge later ruled what was said was insufficiently prejudicial for a mistrial. (Note a lot of what they claimed was “new” wasn’t.)
Can we recreate the UN Mandate of Palestine? It would be reasonable to place it under the stewardship of a Security Council member that can be trusted to be neutral between both Jewish and Muslim communities (China seems like an obvious choice) until such time as both parties get together on a power-sharing arrangement.
I don't think it worked out last time that was tried...
I've just finished read 'A Line in the Sand', which goes into a bit of detail around the Imperialist wrangling between Britain and France over the ME and what comes across in the book is that the British were in way over their heads in the Mandate of Palestine and really had no clue what to do about it.
Somewhat tangential, but I've just today finished a (now seeming ancient) Radio4 production of 'The Riddle of the Sands'. I suspect this is it, but your copyright mileage may vary :
I don’t know much about the case, but why do the details of the supposed ‘encounter’ matter? Surely it’s about the money paid or not paid? Isn’t the use of her testimony just about embarrassing Trump?
No - it's about whether it happened (first) and whether he paid her hush money (second) and whether he forged business records to conceal the payment (fourth) and whether that was done to gain an advantage in the election (fifth).
Long chain of reasoning that needs to hang together there...
If he paid her hush money and it didn't happen surely that could still be fraud?
AIUI (and I will not pretend to be an expert) if he just forged his business records it's a civil offence or a misdemeanour. It's the possible implications for the election that make it an actual felony.
Can you summarise the salacious bits first please 🙏
It was missionary, unprotected, and brief.
That's no fun.
(Which by the sounds of it is also an accurate summary of Ms Daniel's experience.)
Many of these details are not super necessary to the case of course, but since Trump denies any sexual encounter took place at all it has to be gotten into since the jury will need to weigh the credibility of the parties about what happened, and thus why the payoffs occurred.
Has he considered dropping his trousers to demonstrate his penis doesn't look like a mushroom?
If not, why not?
There's a popular strain of pailocybe cubensis called Penis Envy which looks exactly like a penis, which might confuse the issue.
Can you summarise the salacious bits first please 🙏
It was missionary, unprotected, and brief.
That's no fun.
(Which by the sounds of it is also an accurate summary of Ms Daniel's experience.)
Many of these details are not super necessary to the case of course, but since Trump denies any sexual encounter took place at all it has to be gotten into since the jury will need to weigh the credibility of the parties about what happened, and thus why the payoffs occurred.
Has he considered dropping his trousers to demonstrate his penis doesn't look like a mushroom?
If not, why not?
There's a popular strain of pailocybe cubensis called Penis Envy which looks exactly like a penis, which might confuse the issue.
The premise of this and other like-minded pieces is Reform voters are all Conservatives who will run back to the blue rosette at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder. The analogy is with those Conservatives who used to "protest" in mid-term by voting Lib Dem at Council elections and Parliamentary by-elections.
This produced fantastic results for the LDs but the problem was as soon as a GE heaved into view and it was a forced choice between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government the protesters headed back to the Conservatives as did those who registered their "protest" by staying at home for local elections and by-elections.
What you had were Conservatives who were never really Lib Dems at all but realised they could use a vote for the LDs as a harmless (well, not for the unfortunate Conservative local candidate) but significant kick for the incumbent Government.
So, are the current Reform voters something similar? There's not much polling to answer that question definitively - there is a think a significant divergent between Tice/Farage and the membership. To this observer, the Reform leadership, apart from their hostility to the EU, are unreconstructed Thatcherites kken on lower taxes and big cuts in public spending but the Reform membership seems to be more in the Boris Johnson mould which is interventionist and keen to see public money spent but in certain areas and on certain things.
Even on immigration, there's a line being walked between outright hostility to all migrants, both legal and illegal, and a recognition a growing economy leads a level of immigration and recognising gaps in key specialisms needed to fuel that growth can only be filled with immigration.
That's the paradox Reform probably won't address let alone resolve this side of a GE.
The premise of this and other like-minded pieces is Reform voters are all Conservatives who will run back to the blue rosette at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder. The analogy is with those Conservatives who used to "protest" in mid-term by voting Lib Dem at Council elections and Parliamentary by-elections.
This produced fantastic results for the LDs but the problem was as soon as a GE heaved into view and it was a forced choice between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government the protesters headed back to the Conservatives as did those who registered their "protest" by staying at home for local elections and by-elections.
What you had were Conservatives who were never really Lib Dems at all but realised they could use a vote for the LDs as a harmless (well, not for the unfortunate Conservative local candidate) but significant kick for the incumbent Government.
So, are the current Reform voters something similar? There's not much polling to answer that question definitively - there is a think a significant divergent between Tice/Farage and the membership. To this observer, the Reform leadership, apart from their hostility to the EU, are unreconstructed Thatcherites kken on lower taxes and big cuts in public spending but the Reform membership seems to be more in the Boris Johnson mould which is interventionist and keen to see public money spent but in certain areas and on certain things.
Even on immigration, there's a line being walked between outright hostility to all migrants, both legal and illegal, and a recognition a growing economy leads a level of immigration and recognising gaps in key specialisms needed to fuel that growth can only be filled with immigration.
That's the paradox Reform probably won't address let alone resolve this side of a GE.
How is Reform UK walking a line on immigration? They've made net zero immigration the central plank of their policies.
The premise of this and other like-minded pieces is Reform voters are all Conservatives who will run back to the blue rosette at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder. The analogy is with those Conservatives who used to "protest" in mid-term by voting Lib Dem at Council elections and Parliamentary by-elections.
This produced fantastic results for the LDs but the problem was as soon as a GE heaved into view and it was a forced choice between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government the protesters headed back to the Conservatives as did those who registered their "protest" by staying at home for local elections and by-elections.
What you had were Conservatives who were never really Lib Dems at all but realised they could use a vote for the LDs as a harmless (well, not for the unfortunate Conservative local candidate) but significant kick for the incumbent Government.
So, are the current Reform voters something similar? There's not much polling to answer that question definitively - there is a think a significant divergent between Tice/Farage and the membership. To this observer, the Reform leadership, apart from their hostility to the EU, are unreconstructed Thatcherites kken on lower taxes and big cuts in public spending but the Reform membership seems to be more in the Boris Johnson mould which is interventionist and keen to see public money spent but in certain areas and on certain things.
Even on immigration, there's a line being walked between outright hostility to all migrants, both legal and illegal, and a recognition a growing economy leads a level of immigration and recognising gaps in key specialisms needed to fuel that growth can only be filled with immigration.
That's the paradox Reform probably won't address let alone resolve this side of a GE.
How is Reform UK walking a line on immigration? They've made net zero immigration the central plank of their policies.
Zero net migration is surely the most neutral position?
The premise of this and other like-minded pieces is Reform voters are all Conservatives who will run back to the blue rosette at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder. The analogy is with those Conservatives who used to "protest" in mid-term by voting Lib Dem at Council elections and Parliamentary by-elections.
This produced fantastic results for the LDs but the problem was as soon as a GE heaved into view and it was a forced choice between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government the protesters headed back to the Conservatives as did those who registered their "protest" by staying at home for local elections and by-elections.
What you had were Conservatives who were never really Lib Dems at all but realised they could use a vote for the LDs as a harmless (well, not for the unfortunate Conservative local candidate) but significant kick for the incumbent Government.
So, are the current Reform voters something similar? There's not much polling to answer that question definitively - there is a think a significant divergent between Tice/Farage and the membership. To this observer, the Reform leadership, apart from their hostility to the EU, are unreconstructed Thatcherites kken on lower taxes and big cuts in public spending but the Reform membership seems to be more in the Boris Johnson mould which is interventionist and keen to see public money spent but in certain areas and on certain things.
Even on immigration, there's a line being walked between outright hostility to all migrants, both legal and illegal, and a recognition a growing economy leads a level of immigration and recognising gaps in key specialisms needed to fuel that growth can only be filled with immigration.
That's the paradox Reform probably won't address let alone resolve this side of a GE.
How is Reform UK walking a line on immigration? They've made net zero immigration the central plank of their policies.
That may be true but I think the party has elements who would support limited immigration on economic grounds.
The other nuance to this observer is whether they mean literally "one in one out" or whether it's more about a severe clampdown on illegal migration (the aim being its elimination) and far more restrictive conditions on legal migration.
Why has Dune 2 hit streaming so quickly, I thought it was supposed to be good?
Can't be as bad as bullet train which I am currently watching. Director who thinks you got Japanese fights and people saying fuck in cockney accents and you are Quentin T. Really embarrassing.
Why has Dune 2 hit streaming so quickly, I thought it was supposed to be good?
I suspect it was very popular among a smallish group of aficionados (including many journalists) but small groups of aficionados don’t sustain a long cinema run.
The premise of this and other like-minded pieces is Reform voters are all Conservatives who will run back to the blue rosette at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder. The analogy is with those Conservatives who used to "protest" in mid-term by voting Lib Dem at Council elections and Parliamentary by-elections.
This produced fantastic results for the LDs but the problem was as soon as a GE heaved into view and it was a forced choice between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government the protesters headed back to the Conservatives as did those who registered their "protest" by staying at home for local elections and by-elections.
What you had were Conservatives who were never really Lib Dems at all but realised they could use a vote for the LDs as a harmless (well, not for the unfortunate Conservative local candidate) but significant kick for the incumbent Government.
So, are the current Reform voters something similar? There's not much polling to answer that question definitively - there is a think a significant divergent between Tice/Farage and the membership. To this observer, the Reform leadership, apart from their hostility to the EU, are unreconstructed Thatcherites kken on lower taxes and big cuts in public spending but the Reform membership seems to be more in the Boris Johnson mould which is interventionist and keen to see public money spent but in certain areas and on certain things.
Even on immigration, there's a line being walked between outright hostility to all migrants, both legal and illegal, and a recognition a growing economy leads a level of immigration and recognising gaps in key specialisms needed to fuel that growth can only be filled with immigration.
That's the paradox Reform probably won't address let alone resolve this side of a GE.
How is Reform UK walking a line on immigration? They've made net zero immigration the central plank of their policies.
That may be true but I think the party has elements who would support limited immigration on economic grounds.
The other nuance to this observer is whether they mean literally "one in one out" or whether it's more about a severe clampdown on illegal migration (the aim being its elimination) and far more restrictive conditions on legal migration.
They've said what their policy is. It is for net zero immigration (legal or "illegal"). It's not quite one in one out. You don't sit waiting to be let in until someone leaves, but it's effectively one in one out.
I almost had my own cyclegate incident yesterday. A cyclist went through a red light into a box junction completely oblivious to any other traffic.
I'd ban cyclists for the simple reason nobody wants to see a man in Lycra.
Ban this sick filth.
Are you assuming that women don't cycle ...... tsk
Your username does imply that you are free of cycling.
Er... the opposite. My very first ever social media comment was about the then stupid rule preventing cycling in Royal Parks. Husband on bike suffered a serious head injury from a hit and run driver in the Outer Circle of Regents Park.
I have been cycling since university. I've done charity rides, fun rides, cycling all round London to various jobs and I have any number of cycling injuries to show for it all. My husband has been a long-standing campaigner for the West Coast cycling path to be extended round here. We are a cycling family.
A responsible government has a duty to protect our borders. We must know who is coming in and who is going out of the country, at our airports and ports. Again, this is basic common sense. Let’s welcome those who have high level skills and talents that we need — such as doctors, engineers, software developers, scientists and surgeons — in tightly controlled numbers that meet our requirements. Net zero immigration means that the number legally allowed to enter to live and work in the UK each year should equal the number emigrating, so the overall population remains approximately the same. Some 400,000 people leave every year so there is plenty of scope for bringing in the skills and people we need. This policy will mean wages for lower paid will rise, it will help young British workers and so help to significantly reduce the number of people on out of work benefits. It will reduce pressure on affordable housing and public services, given that we already have a record high population. We want these valuable people to come and work in the UK legally, and play by the rules, respecting our values. Illegal immigration is unacceptable and those entering illegally must not be granted asylum in the UK. Reform UK is the only party committed to stopping the boats. We must adopt the tactics used by Australia when they stopped the boats. We must declare a national security threat, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and use existing legislation robustly to stop this illegal trade. We must also use offshore processing centres as Australia did. We must also create a new Department of Immigration staffed with people who believe in the task at hand, to protect our borders. The Home Office is simply not fit for purpose Everyone must know that no-one coming via these illegal routes will be allowed to stay in the UK. Cases must be determined in just a few weeks
Ukrainian state prosecutors analyzed debris from 21 out of roughly 50 North Korean ballistic missiles launched by Russia at Ukraine, uncovering a 50% failure rate with many detonating mid-air. https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1787905511599333818
Can we recreate the UN Mandate of Palestine? It would be reasonable to place it under the stewardship of a Security Council member that can be trusted to be neutral between both Jewish and Muslim communities (China seems like an obvious choice) until such time as both parties get together on a power-sharing arrangement.
I don't think it worked out last time that was tried...
I've just finished read 'A Line in the Sand', which goes into a bit of detail around the Imperialist wrangling between Britain and France over the ME and what comes across in the book is that the British were in way over their heads in the Mandate of Palestine and really had no clue what to do about it.
There are surely so many layers of mistake and regret that it's almost impossible to peel them all back to find any point of departure from which you might expect a better solution to have arisen.
With Northern Ireland, you can maybe squint hard and point at some point between 1785 and 1805 where things might have changed for the good, and turned out well.
How far do you have to go back to find something similar in the history of Palestine? Obviously before Mandatory Palestine. And before San Remo, before the Balfour Declaration, before Sykes-Picot, clearly. How about before the First Aliyah? Before the repopulation the Sanjak of Jerulsalem as a bulwark against the Khedivate of Egypt? Before the Beys? The Mamluks? And on and on and on into the depths of history.
But, no. They are where they are. Things need to move on from here, from where they are now. Historical inquiry might help understand some of the grievances but it doesn't point a way to the future.
Stuff like this is circulating on tiktok.
"To eliminate any doubts, the primary goal was to ethnically cleanse Palestinians and grab the land."
A responsible government has a duty to protect our borders. We must know who is coming in and who is going out of the country, at our airports and ports. Again, this is basic common sense. Let’s welcome those who have high level skills and talents that we need — such as doctors, engineers, software developers, scientists and surgeons — in tightly controlled numbers that meet our requirements. Net zero immigration means that the number legally allowed to enter to live and work in the UK each year should equal the number emigrating, so the overall population remains approximately the same. Some 400,000 people leave every year so there is plenty of scope for bringing in the skills and people we need. This policy will mean wages for lower paid will rise, it will help young British workers and so help to significantly reduce the number of people on out of work benefits. It will reduce pressure on affordable housing and public services, given that we already have a record high population. We want these valuable people to come and work in the UK legally, and play by the rules, respecting our values. Illegal immigration is unacceptable and those entering illegally must not be granted asylum in the UK. Reform UK is the only party committed to stopping the boats. We must adopt the tactics used by Australia when they stopped the boats. We must declare a national security threat, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and use existing legislation robustly to stop this illegal trade. We must also use offshore processing centres as Australia did. We must also create a new Department of Immigration staffed with people who believe in the task at hand, to protect our borders. The Home Office is simply not fit for purpose Everyone must know that no-one coming via these illegal routes will be allowed to stay in the UK. Cases must be determined in just a few weeks
From that I conclude that Reform policy writers are still working on very low resolution screens with a horizontal width of ~40 characters and writing in Notepad with manual line returns.
Very odd. Very precise wording. But still ambiguous. Could refer to an enemy fleet as a whole; doesn't say all of it has to be in action (which is impossible anyway in practice). So what about single ship actions? Even ignoring those, and the Java Sea (because under Netherlands command), and sticking to 1707-today, it's not hard to get 12 and more:
Gulf of Thailand Denmark Strait Indian Ocean (Hermes etc.) Italian MAS Maiales in Alexandria PQ17, HX229/SC112 and several other convoys Norwegian Campaign/Unternehmen Juno Skagerrak/Jutland Coronel Mauritius MInorca Chesapeake Lizard
PS If anyone is relying on "the high seas", then there are very few naval battles on the high seas anyway, making Mr Snow's statement almost meaningless. Most of them are near the choke points or bases of one sidfe or other.
The premise of this and other like-minded pieces is Reform voters are all Conservatives who will run back to the blue rosette at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder. The analogy is with those Conservatives who used to "protest" in mid-term by voting Lib Dem at Council elections and Parliamentary by-elections.
This produced fantastic results for the LDs but the problem was as soon as a GE heaved into view and it was a forced choice between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government the protesters headed back to the Conservatives as did those who registered their "protest" by staying at home for local elections and by-elections.
What you had were Conservatives who were never really Lib Dems at all but realised they could use a vote for the LDs as a harmless (well, not for the unfortunate Conservative local candidate) but significant kick for the incumbent Government.
So, are the current Reform voters something similar? There's not much polling to answer that question definitively - there is a think a significant divergent between Tice/Farage and the membership. To this observer, the Reform leadership, apart from their hostility to the EU, are unreconstructed Thatcherites kken on lower taxes and big cuts in public spending but the Reform membership seems to be more in the Boris Johnson mould which is interventionist and keen to see public money spent but in certain areas and on certain things.
Even on immigration, there's a line being walked between outright hostility to all migrants, both legal and illegal, and a recognition a growing economy leads a level of immigration and recognising gaps in key specialisms needed to fuel that growth can only be filled with immigration.
That's the paradox Reform probably won't address let alone resolve this side of a GE.
How is Reform UK walking a line on immigration? They've made net zero immigration the central plank of their policies.
That may be true but I think the party has elements who would support limited immigration on economic grounds.
The other nuance to this observer is whether they mean literally "one in one out" or whether it's more about a severe clampdown on illegal migration (the aim being its elimination) and far more restrictive conditions on legal migration.
They've said what their policy is. It is for net zero immigration (legal or "illegal"). It's not quite one in one out. You don't sit waiting to be let in until someone leaves, but it's effectively one in one out.
Ukrainian state prosecutors analyzed debris from 21 out of roughly 50 North Korean ballistic missiles launched by Russia at Ukraine, uncovering a 50% failure rate with many detonating mid-air. https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1787905511599333818
I am. Surprised it is as low as 50% failure rate to be honest.
The premise of this and other like-minded pieces is Reform voters are all Conservatives who will run back to the blue rosette at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder. The analogy is with those Conservatives who used to "protest" in mid-term by voting Lib Dem at Council elections and Parliamentary by-elections.
This produced fantastic results for the LDs but the problem was as soon as a GE heaved into view and it was a forced choice between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government the protesters headed back to the Conservatives as did those who registered their "protest" by staying at home for local elections and by-elections.
What you had were Conservatives who were never really Lib Dems at all but realised they could use a vote for the LDs as a harmless (well, not for the unfortunate Conservative local candidate) but significant kick for the incumbent Government.
So, are the current Reform voters something similar? There's not much polling to answer that question definitively - there is a think a significant divergent between Tice/Farage and the membership. To this observer, the Reform leadership, apart from their hostility to the EU, are unreconstructed Thatcherites kken on lower taxes and big cuts in public spending but the Reform membership seems to be more in the Boris Johnson mould which is interventionist and keen to see public money spent but in certain areas and on certain things.
Even on immigration, there's a line being walked between outright hostility to all migrants, both legal and illegal, and a recognition a growing economy leads a level of immigration and recognising gaps in key specialisms needed to fuel that growth can only be filled with immigration.
That's the paradox Reform probably won't address let alone resolve this side of a GE.
How is Reform UK walking a line on immigration? They've made net zero immigration the central plank of their policies.
That may be true but I think the party has elements who would support limited immigration on economic grounds.
The other nuance to this observer is whether they mean literally "one in one out" or whether it's more about a severe clampdown on illegal migration (the aim being its elimination) and far more restrictive conditions on legal migration.
They've said what their policy is. It is for net zero immigration (legal or "illegal"). It's not quite one in one out. You don't sit waiting to be let in until someone leaves, but it's effectively one in one out.
It isn't really - there's a bit of wiggle room around the numbers - but I appreciate where the policy is going.
Presumably the hope of Conservative strategists is Rwanda will be seen to have an effect and that will draw Reform supporters back - the problem is if it doesn't work or the perception is it isn't working, what then?
Very odd. Very precise wording. But still ambiguous. Could refer to an enemy fleet as a whole; doesn't say all of it has to be in action (which is impossible anyway in practice). So what about single ship actions? Even ignoring those, and the Java Sea (because under Netherlands command), and sticking to 1707-today, it's not hard to get 12 and more:
Gulf of Thailand Denmark Strait Indian Ocean (Hermes etc.) Italian MAS Maiales in Alexandria PQ17, HX229/SC112 and several other convoys Norwegian Campaign/Unternehmen Juno Skagerrak/Jutland Coronel Mauritius MInorca Chesapeake Lizard
I just knew someone on PB would come up with a list given enough time.
Very odd. Very precise wording. But still ambiguous. Could refer to an enemy fleet as a whole; doesn't say all of it has to be in action (which is impossible anyway in practice). So what about single ship actions? Even ignoring those, and the Java Sea (because under Netherlands command), and sticking to 1707-today, it's not hard to get 12 and more:
Gulf of Thailand Denmark Strait Indian Ocean (Hermes etc.) Italian MAS Maiales in Alexandria PQ17, HX229/SC112 and several other convoys Norwegian Campaign/Unternehmen Juno Skagerrak/Jutland Coronel Mauritius MInorca Chesapeake Lizard
Very odd. Very precise wording. But still ambiguous. Could refer to an enemy fleet as a whole; doesn't say all of it has to be in action (which is impossible anyway in practice). So what about single ship actions? Even ignoring those, and the Java Sea (because under Netherlands command), and sticking to 1707-today, it's not hard to get 12 and more:
Gulf of Thailand Denmark Strait Indian Ocean (Hermes etc.) Italian MAS Maiales in Alexandria PQ17, HX229/SC112 and several other convoys Norwegian Campaign/Unternehmen Juno Skagerrak/Jutland Coronel Mauritius MInorca Chesapeake Lizard
I just knew someone on PB would come up with a list given enough time.
Just think of the scope for argument. But it's my bedtime, which is perhaps as well.
Comments
De Valera would not approve.
John Swinney: I'll work with Unionists if they park independence opposition
https://twitter.com/simon_telegraph/status/1787922230791352712
With Northern Ireland, you can maybe squint hard and point at some point between 1785 and 1805 where things might have changed for the good, and turned out well.
How far do you have to go back to find something similar in the history of Palestine? Obviously before Mandatory Palestine. And before San Remo, before the Balfour Declaration, before Sykes-Picot, clearly. How about before the First Aliyah? Before the repopulation the Sanjak of Jerulsalem as a bulwark against the Khedivate of Egypt? Before the Beys? The Mamluks? And on and on and on into the depths of history.
But, no. They are where they are. Things need to move on from here, from where they are now. Historical inquiry might help understand some of the grievances but it doesn't point a way to the future.
That's why it's the only one to move forward (Georgia has got wrapped up in vexatious federal powers lawsuits).
John Buchan, 1922.
Long chain of reasoning that needs to hang together there...
"To eliminate any doubts, the primary goal was to ethnically cleanse Palestinians and grab the land."
Watch this powerful video.
https://x.com/abierkhatib/status/1787756093927563502
I did also have a very basic Penguin book, and an old rationing-era MiniFood booklet. All great basic stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybe_cubensis
What could, and couldn’t be presented as evidence (not just the encounter) was extensively litigated pre-trial.
It’s notable the defence didn’t object much as she was giving evidence, and the judge later ruled what was said was insufficiently prejudicial for a mistrial. (Note a lot of what they claimed was “new” wasn’t.)
https://archive.org/details/erskine-childers-the-riddle-of-the-sands
CROWN THE WITCH
https://twitter.com/MattWallace888/status/1787850989120164318
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.myshrooms.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Penis-Envy.jpg&tbnid=aOrfprZzp06ncM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https://www.myshrooms.co.za/product/penis-envy/&docid=5xkRH3sC2KxUqM&w=900&h=900&itg=1&hl=en&source=sh/x/im/m1/2&kgs=dbacaea2fa80e668&shem=abme,trie
Genius move to get the net migration figures down.
The premise of this and other like-minded pieces is Reform voters are all Conservatives who will run back to the blue rosette at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder. The analogy is with those Conservatives who used to "protest" in mid-term by voting Lib Dem at Council elections and Parliamentary by-elections.
This produced fantastic results for the LDs but the problem was as soon as a GE heaved into view and it was a forced choice between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government the protesters headed back to the Conservatives as did those who registered their "protest" by staying at home for local elections and by-elections.
What you had were Conservatives who were never really Lib Dems at all but realised they could use a vote for the LDs as a harmless (well, not for the unfortunate Conservative local candidate) but significant kick for the incumbent Government.
So, are the current Reform voters something similar? There's not much polling to answer that question definitively - there is a think a significant divergent between Tice/Farage and the membership. To this observer, the Reform leadership, apart from their hostility to the EU, are unreconstructed Thatcherites kken on lower taxes and big cuts in public spending but the Reform membership seems to be more in the Boris Johnson mould which is interventionist and keen to see public money spent but in certain areas and on certain things.
Even on immigration, there's a line being walked between outright hostility to all migrants, both legal and illegal, and a recognition a growing economy leads a level of immigration and recognising gaps in key specialisms needed to fuel that growth can only be filled with immigration.
That's the paradox Reform probably won't address let alone resolve this side of a GE.
tumescentproud to be British.Grimesesque
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGRXRrlIspY
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1787940514836213946
Not British Enough.
The likely cause?
The system is run by Fujitsu...
Dunno if it will be 3% but happy to wager under 10.5%
It feels good.
I look good in it.
The only issue is... I'm slightly embarrassed to be seen in public in it.
It hides nothing. It's a little obscene.
Unless the original poster means 'fewer'? In which case: slept with me. There, that makes me feel more special than the moon
The other nuance to this observer is whether they mean literally "one in one out" or whether it's more about a severe clampdown on illegal migration (the aim being its elimination) and far more restrictive conditions on legal migration.
I have been cycling since university. I've done charity rides, fun rides, cycling all round London to various jobs and I have any number of cycling injuries to show for it all. My husband has been a long-standing campaigner for the West Coast cycling path to be extended round here. We are a cycling family.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/303/attachments/original/1696527070/Reform_is_Essential_-_5Oct23.pdf?1696527070
A responsible government has a duty to
protect our borders. We must know who
is coming in and who is going out of the
country, at our airports and ports. Again,
this is basic common sense.
Let’s welcome those who have high
level skills and talents that we need —
such as doctors, engineers, software
developers, scientists and surgeons — in
tightly controlled numbers that meet our
requirements.
Net zero immigration means that the
number legally allowed to enter to live
and work in the UK each year should
equal the number emigrating, so the
overall population remains approximately
the same. Some 400,000 people leave
every year so there is plenty of scope for
bringing in the skills and people we need.
This policy will mean wages for lower
paid will rise, it will help young British
workers and so help to significantly
reduce the number of people on out of
work benefits. It will reduce pressure on
affordable housing and public services,
given that we already have a record high
population. We want these valuable
people to come and work in the UK
legally, and play by the rules, respecting
our values.
Illegal immigration is unacceptable and
those entering illegally must not be
granted asylum in the UK. Reform UK is
the only party committed to stopping the
boats. We must adopt the tactics used by
Australia when they stopped the boats.
We must declare a national security
threat, leave the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR), and use
existing legislation robustly to stop this
illegal trade. We must also use offshore
processing centres as Australia did.
We must also create a new Department
of Immigration staffed with people who
believe in the task at hand, to protect our
borders. The Home Office is simply not fit
for purpose
Everyone must know that no-one coming
via these illegal routes will be allowed to
stay in the UK. Cases must be determined
in just a few weeks
Ukrainian state prosecutors analyzed debris from 21 out of roughly 50 North Korean ballistic missiles launched by Russia at Ukraine, uncovering a 50% failure rate with many detonating mid-air.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1787905511599333818
Gulf of Thailand
Denmark Strait
Indian Ocean (Hermes etc.)
Italian MAS Maiales in Alexandria
PQ17, HX229/SC112 and several other convoys
Norwegian Campaign/Unternehmen Juno
Skagerrak/Jutland
Coronel
Mauritius
MInorca
Chesapeake
Lizard
PS If anyone is relying on "the high seas", then there are very few naval battles on the high seas anyway, making Mr Snow's statement almost meaningless. Most of them are near the choke points or bases of one sidfe or other.
Presumably the hope of Conservative strategists is Rwanda will be seen to have an effect and that will draw Reform supporters back - the problem is if it doesn't work or the perception is it isn't working, what then?