I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Are you 100% sure that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
It’s a huge problem with noisy hobbies. Almost every small local airfield or motorsports venue has a constant nightmare with local residents campaigning to get them shut down.
Venues that have been doing their activities for many decades, and often residents of more recent appearance in the area.
Sorry Mr & Mrs Newbie, did your property searches manage to totally miss that airport half a mile away from your new house?
After we moved here, a children's playground was established close to our small back garden. The playground is for young children and Mrs C and I rather enjoy the sound of small children at play. There's the odd wail of course, but mainly it's laughter.
Obviously, the remedy to that will be extremely expensive and means replicating many of the US systems, including manufacturing. It also means the diplomatic difficulty of telling the US that Europe doesn't trust it. It also means military and political co-operation across Europe that will be difficult in current circumstances. None of those are reasons for not doing it, other than to craven politicians who prefer burying their heads in the sand to protecting their countries. I hope, behind the scenes, it's already happening.
This is all true, but nobody wants to pay for strategic autonomy and it's a guaranteed election losing prospectus. If DJT wins then SKS will gargle his nuts to get a bilateral defence agreement if necessary.
There is no bilateral anything with Trump. There is no agreement that can be trusted. There is no guarantee that he won't leverage the same things he's previously promised in order to extract further concessions.
Besides, I don't think opposing that kind of investment is an election-winning prospectus. Being seen as 'weak on defence' has frequently been an election-losing prospectus (in the UK at least).
I'm still watching for some thoughtful commentary on Trump's potential impact on Five Eyes, given that we already know that he regards USA secret information as things that he is entitled to sell for personal gain when he is President, and the Supreme Court to which he manipulated appointments has declared that he will not practically be able to be prosecuted.
Thank God for the 22nd amendment. My hope is people will mislead, disobey and ignore him as necessary while running the clock down to 2028.
The 22nd Amendment is not the safeguard a lot of people think it is, particularly with this Supreme Court. There are ways round it.
Is there anything to prevent, say, Trump running as VP on a ticket after completing a second term and then serving as president when the president steps down?
Russia's term limits have not proved too much of a difficulty to Putin.
That's the most obvious route by which it could be done (he could also just remain as VP and run things from there, a la Putin-Medvedev 2008-12, though that's not really Trump's style. Nor Putin's these days).
The argument against it is the provision in the 12th amendment that no person is eligible to be VP who is not eligible to be president. However, the 22nd amendment merely says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say that they are barred outright and cannot inherit the presidency by some other means than election, nor does it place a bar on the same people being elected as VP. That's probably enough wriggle room for a former president barred under the 22nd, to be let through by the (this) SCOTUS to stand to be VP.
I hope for his sake that his case is like my daughters. She was diagnosed late in November, when the only real symptoms were clumsiness and a somewhat husky voice, and died on Valentines Day. Valentines Day has never been the same since.
I am so sorry to hear that news
My daughter in law's father died of MND but managed to attend her wedding in 2015 in Kelona but passed away 2 months later
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
It’s a huge problem with noisy hobbies. Almost every small local airfield or motorsports venue has a constant nightmare with local residents campaigning to get them shut down.
Venues that have been doing their activities for many decades, and often residents of more recent appearance in the area.
Sorry Mr & Mrs Newbie, did your property searches manage to totally miss that airport half a mile away from your new house?
After we moved here, a children's playground was established close to our small back garden. The playground is for young children and Mrs C and I rather enjoy the sound of small children at play. There's the odd wail of course, but mainly it's laughter.
The distant sound of children at play is the loveliest sound in the world. You can hear break and lunch at the local primary school from our house (when you're outside.) I remember the first time I heard this again after the covid closures was one of the few times in life I've cried with happiness.
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
It’s a huge problem with noisy hobbies. Almost every small local airfield or motorsports venue has a constant nightmare with local residents campaigning to get them shut down.
Venues that have been doing their activities for many decades, and often residents of more recent appearance in the area.
Sorry Mr & Mrs Newbie, did your property searches manage to totally miss that airport half a mile away from your new house?
After we moved here, a children's playground was established close to our small back garden. The playground is for young children and Mrs C and I rather enjoy the sound of small children at play. There's the odd wail of course, but mainly it's laughter.
That’s lovely. The two things I could never understand the complaints about, were kids playgrounds and church bells.
Sounds like a nice CGT windfall for Reeves. Winners all round!
Nah, he will buy the First Lady some fancy knickers and an exemption applying to his case will coincidentally crop up in the budget. You have a lot to learn about life in a banana republic.
Appearance of corruption was Robert Jenrick I think.
In personal communication with Richard Desmond re: a planning decision, then used his Housing Minister position to approve the Planning Permission on Westferry, which would have helped Desmond avoid £45m in tax - payable to Tower Hamlets if it had been approved one day later.
Then 2 weeks later accepted a donation from Desmond of £12k.
I'd be interested to know the outcome re whether the action was lawful given the communication.
If they elect him, they deserve everything they get.
For sure Jenrick is horrific. But "less corrupt than Robert Jenrick" doesn't sell a PM to me any more than "less paedophilic than Jimmy Savile" sells a babysitter.
That comparison seems to me only to have meaning if you can show in some way that the current PM is in some way corrupt, so that is the choice to be made. Otherwise it is rhetoric.
Can you demonstrate that?
I regard gifts to politicians, of clothes or wallpaper, as corruption. If this were a local businessman bunging a local councillor I would hope and expect the pair would go to prison.
Can you comment further on that - I think that line may be in the wrong place enough to obscure the real problem, has no role for transparency aka Registration of Interests, and ignores that the key feature of corruption is a payback for the 'donor'.
So at one end Ed Davey not paying an entry fee to the water park where he did his Election Stunt, or an MP getting Guest Entry to a football match Lower-Twistleton-Under-Piddle FC where the ticket costs £2 is corruption, even if declared.
Further along the 'gift' scale we have Mrs Starmer's dress paid for by the donor, David Cameron's purchase of a £3500 suit for a discounted £1100 *, or Samantha Cameron's wearing of a £1500 dress which she did not buy with a benefit of either the gift or the use for one evening. She is on record as saying she did not have disposable income for designer clothes. **
Compare to Jenrick who attempted to give a payback to Desmond worth £45m, when receiving a donation.
Where's the quid pro quo payback for the donors in the other cases? What do you see the role of a Register of Interests to be?
All these donations from whatever source should be outlawed, and if necessary increase mps and PM pay, though I cannot understand how Starmer accepting £20,000 for his clothes and glasses, let alone his wife receiving thousands is a good look for a PM elected on ending sleeze and cronyism
Sounds like a nice CGT windfall for Reeves. Winners all round!
Nah, he will buy the First Lady some fancy knickers and an exemption applying to his case will coincidentally crop up in the budget. You have a lot to learn about life in a banana republic.
Appearance of corruption was Robert Jenrick I think.
In personal communication with Richard Desmond re: a planning decision, then used his Housing Minister position to approve the Planning Permission on Westferry, which would have helped Desmond avoid £45m in tax - payable to Tower Hamlets if it had been approved one day later.
Then 2 weeks later accepted a donation from Desmond of £12k.
I'd be interested to know the outcome re whether the action was lawful given the communication.
If they elect him, they deserve everything they get.
For sure Jenrick is horrific. But "less corrupt than Robert Jenrick" doesn't sell a PM to me any more than "less paedophilic than Jimmy Savile" sells a babysitter.
That comparison seems to me only to have meaning if you can show in some way that the current PM is in some way corrupt, so that is the choice to be made. Otherwise it is rhetoric.
Can you demonstrate that?
I regard gifts to politicians, of clothes or wallpaper, as corruption. If this were a local businessman bunging a local councillor I would hope and expect the pair would go to prison.
It's only corruption if there is something given or offered in return, or if the donation is made in the expectation of such a return (arguably, in the hope of it too - though how you'd prove a 'hope' is anyone's guess).
MPs and other elected people rightly have to declare donations, gifts and the like. Personally, I'd argue that MPs should be subject to the same rules as councillors when it comes to 'interests'. However, transparency is really the key to this and the public have a pretty decent sense of what's fair and what's not (Starmer declaring late *is* a failure he should be criticised for but let's keep things in perspective). A party supporter gifting clothes or similar to a PM or their family, assuming there's no return in terms of office, honours, patronage or whatever, seems pretty innocuous to me. The PM and their spouse are expected to attend social engagements for which outfits could be quite a burden to someone on not a huge salary (by the standards of others who'd be at the same sort of thing), and where they're expected to 'represent the country'. In the absence of a more generous allowance from the state for social paraphanalia, donations from rich friends should be a relatively uncontroversial way of resolving the problem.
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
It’s a huge problem with noisy hobbies. Almost every small local airfield or motorsports venue has a constant nightmare with local residents campaigning to get them shut down.
Venues that have been doing their activities for many decades, and often residents of more recent appearance in the area.
Sorry Mr & Mrs Newbie, did your property searches manage to totally miss that airport half a mile away from your new house?
After we moved here, a children's playground was established close to our small back garden. The playground is for young children and Mrs C and I rather enjoy the sound of small children at play. There's the odd wail of course, but mainly it's laughter.
That’s lovely. The two things I could never understand the complaints about, were kids playgrounds and church bells.
The house we live in was previously bought by a nursery business who wanted to turn it into a nursery. They lost their planning application which is why they put it back on the market (and we bought it - derelict and with 12 squatters living there).
One of the complaints was that neighbours would hear the noise of the children outside in the garden during break times. Anyone who's been close to a nursery will know they are even quieter and less shouty than children's playgrounds. I mean virtually inaudible, and the noises you do hear are typically quiet burbling and the occasional cry.
Still, I suppose we benefited (as did the nursery - they bought a ruin, sat on it for 2 years and spent a bit on an architect and planning application, then sold it again unchanged for a £200k profit).
Sounds like a nice CGT windfall for Reeves. Winners all round!
Nah, he will buy the First Lady some fancy knickers and an exemption applying to his case will coincidentally crop up in the budget. You have a lot to learn about life in a banana republic.
Appearance of corruption was Robert Jenrick I think.
In personal communication with Richard Desmond re: a planning decision, then used his Housing Minister position to approve the Planning Permission on Westferry, which would have helped Desmond avoid £45m in tax - payable to Tower Hamlets if it had been approved one day later.
Then 2 weeks later accepted a donation from Desmond of £12k.
I'd be interested to know the outcome re whether the action was lawful given the communication.
If they elect him, they deserve everything they get.
For sure Jenrick is horrific. But "less corrupt than Robert Jenrick" doesn't sell a PM to me any more than "less paedophilic than Jimmy Savile" sells a babysitter.
That comparison seems to me only to have meaning if you can show in some way that the current PM is in some way corrupt, so that is the choice to be made. Otherwise it is rhetoric.
Can you demonstrate that?
I regard gifts to politicians, of clothes or wallpaper, as corruption. If this were a local businessman bunging a local councillor I would hope and expect the pair would go to prison.
Can you comment further on that - I think that line may be in the wrong place enough to obscure the real problem, has no role for transparency aka Registration of Interests, and ignores that the key feature of corruption is a payback for the 'donor'.
So at one end Ed Davey not paying an entry fee to the water park where he did his Election Stunt, or an MP getting Guest Entry to a football match Lower-Twistleton-Under-Piddle FC where the ticket costs £2 is corruption, even if declared.
Further along the 'gift' scale we have Mrs Starmer's dress paid for by the donor, David Cameron's purchase of a £3500 suit for a discounted £1100 *, or Samantha Cameron's wearing of a £1500 dress which she did not buy with a benefit of either the gift or the use for one evening. She is on record as saying she did not have disposable income for designer clothes. **
Compare to Jenrick who attempted to give a payback to Desmond worth £45m, when receiving a donation.
Where's the quid pro quo payback for the donors in the other cases? What do you see the role of a Register of Interests to be?
All these donations from whatever source should be outlawed, and if necessary increase mps and PM pay, though I cannot understand how Starmer accepting £20,000 for his clothes and glasses, let alone his wife receiving thousands is a good look for a PM elected on ending sleeze and cronyism
I’m sure one doesn’t have to spend squillions to look smart.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
I hope for his sake that his case is like my daughters. She was diagnosed late in November, when the only real symptoms were clumsiness and a somewhat husky voice, and died on Valentines Day. Valentines Day has never been the same since.
I am so sorry to hear that news
My daughter in law's father died of MND but managed to attend her wedding in 2015 in Kelona but passed away 2 months later
It’s a while ago, thanks Mr G. We’ll never really get over it, of course.
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
It’s a huge problem with noisy hobbies. Almost every small local airfield or motorsports venue has a constant nightmare with local residents campaigning to get them shut down.
Venues that have been doing their activities for many decades, and often residents of more recent appearance in the area.
Sorry Mr & Mrs Newbie, did your property searches manage to totally miss that airport half a mile away from your new house?
After we moved here, a children's playground was established close to our small back garden. The playground is for young children and Mrs C and I rather enjoy the sound of small children at play. There's the odd wail of course, but mainly it's laughter.
That’s lovely. The two things I could never understand the complaints about, were kids playgrounds and church bells.
On the latter, I think it depends on how close you live. Near neighbours might find the peal unappealing...
Sounds like a nice CGT windfall for Reeves. Winners all round!
Nah, he will buy the First Lady some fancy knickers and an exemption applying to his case will coincidentally crop up in the budget. You have a lot to learn about life in a banana republic.
Appearance of corruption was Robert Jenrick I think.
In personal communication with Richard Desmond re: a planning decision, then used his Housing Minister position to approve the Planning Permission on Westferry, which would have helped Desmond avoid £45m in tax - payable to Tower Hamlets if it had been approved one day later.
Then 2 weeks later accepted a donation from Desmond of £12k.
I'd be interested to know the outcome re whether the action was lawful given the communication.
If they elect him, they deserve everything they get.
For sure Jenrick is horrific. But "less corrupt than Robert Jenrick" doesn't sell a PM to me any more than "less paedophilic than Jimmy Savile" sells a babysitter.
That comparison seems to me only to have meaning if you can show in some way that the current PM is in some way corrupt, so that is the choice to be made. Otherwise it is rhetoric.
Can you demonstrate that?
I regard gifts to politicians, of clothes or wallpaper, as corruption. If this were a local businessman bunging a local councillor I would hope and expect the pair would go to prison.
Can you comment further on that - I think that line may be in the wrong place enough to obscure the real problem, has no role for transparency aka Registration of Interests, and ignores that the key feature of corruption is a payback for the 'donor'.
So at one end Ed Davey not paying an entry fee to the water park where he did his Election Stunt, or an MP getting Guest Entry to a football match Lower-Twistleton-Under-Piddle FC where the ticket costs £2 is corruption, even if declared.
Further along the 'gift' scale we have Mrs Starmer's dress paid for by the donor, David Cameron's purchase of a £3500 suit for a discounted £1100 *, or Samantha Cameron's wearing of a £1500 dress which she did not buy with a benefit of either the gift or the use for one evening. She is on record as saying she did not have disposable income for designer clothes. **
Compare to Jenrick who attempted to give a payback to Desmond worth £45m, when receiving a donation.
Where's the quid pro quo payback for the donors in the other cases? What do you see the role of a Register of Interests to be?
All these donations from whatever source should be outlawed, and if necessary increase mps and PM pay, though I cannot understand how Starmer accepting £20,000 for his clothes and glasses, let alone his wife receiving thousands is a good look for a PM elected on ending sleeze and cronyism
I’m sure one doesn’t have to spend squillions to look smart.
It would be so refreshing if our leaders could buy normal 'M & S' style clothes and make a point of acting normal and not just as another overpaid celebrity
Sounds like a nice CGT windfall for Reeves. Winners all round!
Nah, he will buy the First Lady some fancy knickers and an exemption applying to his case will coincidentally crop up in the budget. You have a lot to learn about life in a banana republic.
Appearance of corruption was Robert Jenrick I think.
In personal communication with Richard Desmond re: a planning decision, then used his Housing Minister position to approve the Planning Permission on Westferry, which would have helped Desmond avoid £45m in tax - payable to Tower Hamlets if it had been approved one day later.
Then 2 weeks later accepted a donation from Desmond of £12k.
I'd be interested to know the outcome re whether the action was lawful given the communication.
If they elect him, they deserve everything they get.
For sure Jenrick is horrific. But "less corrupt than Robert Jenrick" doesn't sell a PM to me any more than "less paedophilic than Jimmy Savile" sells a babysitter.
That comparison seems to me only to have meaning if you can show in some way that the current PM is in some way corrupt, so that is the choice to be made. Otherwise it is rhetoric.
Can you demonstrate that?
I regard gifts to politicians, of clothes or wallpaper, as corruption. If this were a local businessman bunging a local councillor I would hope and expect the pair would go to prison.
Can you comment further on that - I think that line may be in the wrong place enough to obscure the real problem, has no role for transparency aka Registration of Interests, and ignores that the key feature of corruption is a payback for the 'donor'.
So at one end Ed Davey not paying an entry fee to the water park where he did his Election Stunt, or an MP getting Guest Entry to a football match Lower-Twistleton-Under-Piddle FC where the ticket costs £2 is corruption, even if declared.
Further along the 'gift' scale we have Mrs Starmer's dress paid for by the donor, David Cameron's purchase of a £3500 suit for a discounted £1100 *, or Samantha Cameron's wearing of a £1500 dress which she did not buy with a benefit of either the gift or the use for one evening. She is on record as saying she did not have disposable income for designer clothes. **
Compare to Jenrick who attempted to give a payback to Desmond worth £45m, when receiving a donation.
Where's the quid pro quo payback for the donors in the other cases? What do you see the role of a Register of Interests to be?
I think humanity ticks along on the basis of reciprocal obligations. If you buy someone a drink you expect to get one back, and so on. A politician has no business accepting gifts with an intention to reciprocate and doesn't look too good accepting them with no such intention. Have both a register of interests and a cash value upper limit of £200.
I accept that some instances are more egregious than others. I am happy to accuse Starmer of greed and bad judgement but not actually corruption if that helps.
It's the bad judgement that frustrates me. Did he not notice the complaints about people paying for Boris Johnson's flat redecoration?
I hope for his sake that his case is like my daughters. She was diagnosed late in November, when the only real symptoms were clumsiness and a somewhat husky voice, and died on Valentines Day. Valentines Day has never been the same since.
I am so sorry to hear that news
My daughter in law's father died of MND but managed to attend her wedding in 2015 in Kelona but passed away 2 months later
It’s a while ago, thanks Mr G. We’ll never really get over, of course.
Of course you won't
Our daughter had a miscarriage before her first was born, and that upsets her even today no matter she has 21 and 15 year daughter and son
I hope for his sake that his case is like my daughters. She was diagnosed late in November, when the only real symptoms were clumsiness and a somewhat husky voice, and died on Valentines Day. Valentines Day has never been the same since.
Condolences to you and your family, my mother also passed on the same date.
Obviously, the remedy to that will be extremely expensive and means replicating many of the US systems, including manufacturing. It also means the diplomatic difficulty of telling the US that Europe doesn't trust it. It also means military and political co-operation across Europe that will be difficult in current circumstances. None of those are reasons for not doing it, other than to craven politicians who prefer burying their heads in the sand to protecting their countries. I hope, behind the scenes, it's already happening.
This is all true, but nobody wants to pay for strategic autonomy and it's a guaranteed election losing prospectus. If DJT wins then SKS will gargle his nuts to get a bilateral defence agreement if necessary.
There is no bilateral anything with Trump. There is no agreement that can be trusted. There is no guarantee that he won't leverage the same things he's previously promised in order to extract further concessions.
Besides, I don't think opposing that kind of investment is an election-winning prospectus. Being seen as 'weak on defence' has frequently been an election-losing prospectus (in the UK at least).
I'm still watching for some thoughtful commentary on Trump's potential impact on Five Eyes, given that we already know that he regards USA secret information as things that he is entitled to sell for personal gain when he is President, and the Supreme Court to which he manipulated appointments has declared that he will not practically be able to be prosecuted.
Thank God for the 22nd amendment. My hope is people will mislead, disobey and ignore him as necessary while running the clock down to 2028.
The 22nd Amendment is not the safeguard a lot of people think it is, particularly with this Supreme Court. There are ways round it.
Is there anything to prevent, say, Trump running as VP on a ticket after completing a second term and then serving as president when the president steps down?
Russia's term limits have not proved too much of a difficulty to Putin.
That's the most obvious route by which it could be done (he could also just remain as VP and run things from there, a la Putin-Medvedev 2008-12, though that's not really Trump's style. Nor Putin's these days).
The argument against it is the provision in the 12th amendment that no person is eligible to be VP who is not eligible to be president. However, the 22nd amendment merely says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say that they are barred outright and cannot inherit the presidency by some other means than election, nor does it place a bar on the same people being elected as VP. That's probably enough wriggle room for a former president barred under the 22nd, to be let through by the (this) SCOTUS to stand to be VP.
As far as I can tell it's up to the States who they put on the ballot, and the amendment didn't explicitly say that the States can't put someone on the ballot paper. So I don't believe this Supreme Court would force a State to take Trump off the ballot paper in 2028, if he was elected in 2024.
Their argument on the 16th amendment case was that it was basically up to Congress to enforce that bit of the Constitution, and nothing to do with the Supreme Court, so if Trump wins election to a third term in 2028, and that was certified by Congress - I do not think the Supreme Court would order the result to be set aside.
Sounds like a nice CGT windfall for Reeves. Winners all round!
Nah, he will buy the First Lady some fancy knickers and an exemption applying to his case will coincidentally crop up in the budget. You have a lot to learn about life in a banana republic.
Appearance of corruption was Robert Jenrick I think.
In personal communication with Richard Desmond re: a planning decision, then used his Housing Minister position to approve the Planning Permission on Westferry, which would have helped Desmond avoid £45m in tax - payable to Tower Hamlets if it had been approved one day later.
Then 2 weeks later accepted a donation from Desmond of £12k.
I'd be interested to know the outcome re whether the action was lawful given the communication.
If they elect him, they deserve everything they get.
For sure Jenrick is horrific. But "less corrupt than Robert Jenrick" doesn't sell a PM to me any more than "less paedophilic than Jimmy Savile" sells a babysitter.
That comparison seems to me only to have meaning if you can show in some way that the current PM is in some way corrupt, so that is the choice to be made. Otherwise it is rhetoric.
Can you demonstrate that?
I regard gifts to politicians, of clothes or wallpaper, as corruption. If this were a local businessman bunging a local councillor I would hope and expect the pair would go to prison.
Can you comment further on that - I think that line may be in the wrong place enough to obscure the real problem, has no role for transparency aka Registration of Interests, and ignores that the key feature of corruption is a payback for the 'donor'.
So at one end Ed Davey not paying an entry fee to the water park where he did his Election Stunt, or an MP getting Guest Entry to a football match Lower-Twistleton-Under-Piddle FC where the ticket costs £2 is corruption, even if declared.
Further along the 'gift' scale we have Mrs Starmer's dress paid for by the donor, David Cameron's purchase of a £3500 suit for a discounted £1100 *, or Samantha Cameron's wearing of a £1500 dress which she did not buy with a benefit of either the gift or the use for one evening. She is on record as saying she did not have disposable income for designer clothes. **
Compare to Jenrick who attempted to give a payback to Desmond worth £45m, when receiving a donation.
Where's the quid pro quo payback for the donors in the other cases? What do you see the role of a Register of Interests to be?
I think humanity ticks along on the basis of reciprocal obligations. If you buy someone a drink you expect to get one back, and so on. A politician has no business accepting gifts with an intention to reciprocate and doesn't look too good accepting them with no such intention. Have both a register of interests and a cash value upper limit of £200.
I accept that some instances are more egregious than others. I am happy to accuse Starmer of greed and bad judgement but not actually corruption if that helps.
It's the bad judgement that frustrates me. Did he not notice the complaints about people paying for Boris Johnson's flat redecoration?
He should do, he took part in this photo op over it.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Are you 100% sure that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.
I am even surer of that than I am that Trump properly lost the 2020 election. Both approximate to 100% to the nearest whole number.
Sounds like a nice CGT windfall for Reeves. Winners all round!
Nah, he will buy the First Lady some fancy knickers and an exemption applying to his case will coincidentally crop up in the budget. You have a lot to learn about life in a banana republic.
Appearance of corruption was Robert Jenrick I think.
In personal communication with Richard Desmond re: a planning decision, then used his Housing Minister position to approve the Planning Permission on Westferry, which would have helped Desmond avoid £45m in tax - payable to Tower Hamlets if it had been approved one day later.
Then 2 weeks later accepted a donation from Desmond of £12k.
I'd be interested to know the outcome re whether the action was lawful given the communication.
If they elect him, they deserve everything they get.
For sure Jenrick is horrific. But "less corrupt than Robert Jenrick" doesn't sell a PM to me any more than "less paedophilic than Jimmy Savile" sells a babysitter.
That comparison seems to me only to have meaning if you can show in some way that the current PM is in some way corrupt, so that is the choice to be made. Otherwise it is rhetoric.
Can you demonstrate that?
I regard gifts to politicians, of clothes or wallpaper, as corruption. If this were a local businessman bunging a local councillor I would hope and expect the pair would go to prison.
Can you comment further on that - I think that line may be in the wrong place enough to obscure the real problem, has no role for transparency aka Registration of Interests, and ignores that the key feature of corruption is a payback for the 'donor'.
So at one end Ed Davey not paying an entry fee to the water park where he did his Election Stunt, or an MP getting Guest Entry to a football match Lower-Twistleton-Under-Piddle FC where the ticket costs £2 is corruption, even if declared.
Further along the 'gift' scale we have Mrs Starmer's dress paid for by the donor, David Cameron's purchase of a £3500 suit for a discounted £1100 *, or Samantha Cameron's wearing of a £1500 dress which she did not buy with a benefit of either the gift or the use for one evening. She is on record as saying she did not have disposable income for designer clothes. **
Compare to Jenrick who attempted to give a payback to Desmond worth £45m, when receiving a donation.
Where's the quid pro quo payback for the donors in the other cases? What do you see the role of a Register of Interests to be?
I think humanity ticks along on the basis of reciprocal obligations. If you buy someone a drink you expect to get one back, and so on. A politician has no business accepting gifts with an intention to reciprocate and doesn't look too good accepting them with no such intention. Have both a register of interests and a cash value upper limit of £200.
I accept that some instances are more egregious than others. I am happy to accuse Starmer of greed and bad judgement but not actually corruption if that helps.
It's the bad judgement that frustrates me. Did he not notice the complaints about people paying for Boris Johnson's flat redecoration?
He should do, he took part in this photo op over it.
So we have to assume that Starmer has the moral blindness which makes some people think it's okay for them to do x, y and z, because they know that they are incorruptible, while they criticise other people for doing the same, because it obviously looks super dodgy and weird for the PM to receive large financial gifts from people. How can it not?
It's a failure of theory of mind. It's just really mediocre.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Are you 100% sure that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.
I am even surer of that than I am that Trump properly lost the 2020 election. Both approximate to 100% to the nearest whole number.
Sounds like a nice CGT windfall for Reeves. Winners all round!
Nah, he will buy the First Lady some fancy knickers and an exemption applying to his case will coincidentally crop up in the budget. You have a lot to learn about life in a banana republic.
Appearance of corruption was Robert Jenrick I think.
In personal communication with Richard Desmond re: a planning decision, then used his Housing Minister position to approve the Planning Permission on Westferry, which would have helped Desmond avoid £45m in tax - payable to Tower Hamlets if it had been approved one day later.
Then 2 weeks later accepted a donation from Desmond of £12k.
I'd be interested to know the outcome re whether the action was lawful given the communication.
If they elect him, they deserve everything they get.
For sure Jenrick is horrific. But "less corrupt than Robert Jenrick" doesn't sell a PM to me any more than "less paedophilic than Jimmy Savile" sells a babysitter.
That comparison seems to me only to have meaning if you can show in some way that the current PM is in some way corrupt, so that is the choice to be made. Otherwise it is rhetoric.
Can you demonstrate that?
I regard gifts to politicians, of clothes or wallpaper, as corruption. If this were a local businessman bunging a local councillor I would hope and expect the pair would go to prison.
Can you comment further on that - I think that line may be in the wrong place enough to obscure the real problem, has no role for transparency aka Registration of Interests, and ignores that the key feature of corruption is a payback for the 'donor'.
So at one end Ed Davey not paying an entry fee to the water park where he did his Election Stunt, or an MP getting Guest Entry to a football match Lower-Twistleton-Under-Piddle FC where the ticket costs £2 is corruption, even if declared.
Further along the 'gift' scale we have Mrs Starmer's dress paid for by the donor, David Cameron's purchase of a £3500 suit for a discounted £1100 *, or Samantha Cameron's wearing of a £1500 dress which she did not buy with a benefit of either the gift or the use for one evening. She is on record as saying she did not have disposable income for designer clothes. **
Compare to Jenrick who attempted to give a payback to Desmond worth £45m, when receiving a donation.
Where's the quid pro quo payback for the donors in the other cases? What do you see the role of a Register of Interests to be?
I think humanity ticks along on the basis of reciprocal obligations. If you buy someone a drink you expect to get one back, and so on. A politician has no business accepting gifts with an intention to reciprocate and doesn't look too good accepting them with no such intention. Have both a register of interests and a cash value upper limit of £200.
I accept that some instances are more egregious than others. I am happy to accuse Starmer of greed and bad judgement but not actually corruption if that helps.
It's the bad judgement that frustrates me. Did he not notice the complaints about people paying for Boris Johnson's flat redecoration?
He should do, he took part in this photo op over it.
So we have to assume that Starmer has the moral blindness which makes some people think it's okay for them to do x, y and z, because they know that they are incorruptible, while they criticise other people for doing the same, because it obviously looks super dodgy and weird for the PM to receive large financial gifts from people. How can it not?
It's a failure of theory of mind. It's just really mediocre.
Absolutely, and the defence his colleagues were trotting out for him on the rounds yesterday was feeble. They must have been embarrassed having to deliver those repudiations on his behalf. It doesn't reflect too well on them either.
I note that Huw Edwards has arrived at court with a suitcase.
That’s a strong indication that his legal team are expecting him to go to prison.
No it is standard for any offence where custody is the maximum, I suspect a suspended sentence and sex offender treatment order
From the Judges summing up on twitter, I think you are right. He won't get a custodial. It is all mental health, suicide risk, unresolved same sex attraction issues, issues with Father.
So I would think that would mitigate even though the ages of some of the children was rather young according to the Standard report. One being between 7 and 9.
Obviously, the remedy to that will be extremely expensive and means replicating many of the US systems, including manufacturing. It also means the diplomatic difficulty of telling the US that Europe doesn't trust it. It also means military and political co-operation across Europe that will be difficult in current circumstances. None of those are reasons for not doing it, other than to craven politicians who prefer burying their heads in the sand to protecting their countries. I hope, behind the scenes, it's already happening.
This is all true, but nobody wants to pay for strategic autonomy and it's a guaranteed election losing prospectus. If DJT wins then SKS will gargle his nuts to get a bilateral defence agreement if necessary.
There is no bilateral anything with Trump. There is no agreement that can be trusted. There is no guarantee that he won't leverage the same things he's previously promised in order to extract further concessions.
Besides, I don't think opposing that kind of investment is an election-winning prospectus. Being seen as 'weak on defence' has frequently been an election-losing prospectus (in the UK at least).
I'm still watching for some thoughtful commentary on Trump's potential impact on Five Eyes, given that we already know that he regards USA secret information as things that he is entitled to sell for personal gain when he is President, and the Supreme Court to which he manipulated appointments has declared that he will not practically be able to be prosecuted.
Thank God for the 22nd amendment. My hope is people will mislead, disobey and ignore him as necessary while running the clock down to 2028.
The 22nd Amendment is not the safeguard a lot of people think it is, particularly with this Supreme Court. There are ways round it.
Is there anything to prevent, say, Trump running as VP on a ticket after completing a second term and then serving as president when the president steps down?
Russia's term limits have not proved too much of a difficulty to Putin.
That's the most obvious route by which it could be done (he could also just remain as VP and run things from there, a la Putin-Medvedev 2008-12, though that's not really Trump's style. Nor Putin's these days).
The argument against it is the provision in the 12th amendment that no person is eligible to be VP who is not eligible to be president. However, the 22nd amendment merely says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say that they are barred outright and cannot inherit the presidency by some other means than election, nor does it place a bar on the same people being elected as VP. That's probably enough wriggle room for a former president barred under the 22nd, to be let through by the (this) SCOTUS to stand to be VP.
So Trump could never be elected President more than twice. If Vance was GOP candidate in 2028 if he and Trump won in November he would pick another VP candidate anyway
"So, let’s do something. Let’s commit never again to lockdown children. Let’s ban smartphones in school. Let’s follow Australia: impose a higher, tougher age limit on social media. Phones are frying undeveloped brains, and it’s strange that the British government – so keen to control sugar or vaping – has given up on controlling their use. Even odder that so many parents have, too."
"So, let’s do something. Let’s commit never again to lockdown children. Let’s ban smartphones in school. Let’s follow Australia: impose a higher, tougher age limit on social media. Phones are frying undeveloped brains, and it’s strange that the British government – so keen to control sugar or vaping – has given up on controlling their use. Even odder that so many parents have, too."
The more you read about Routh the more you think he really seemed like quite a nice guy. He was once given an award by the police for defending a woman against an alleged rapist and was described as a “ super citizen “. His concern about Ukraine seemed very heartfelt and it’s hard to believe how he ended up with an AK47 allegedly intent on shooting Trump.
Sounds like a nice CGT windfall for Reeves. Winners all round!
Nah, he will buy the First Lady some fancy knickers and an exemption applying to his case will coincidentally crop up in the budget. You have a lot to learn about life in a banana republic.
Appearance of corruption was Robert Jenrick I think.
In personal communication with Richard Desmond re: a planning decision, then used his Housing Minister position to approve the Planning Permission on Westferry, which would have helped Desmond avoid £45m in tax - payable to Tower Hamlets if it had been approved one day later.
Then 2 weeks later accepted a donation from Desmond of £12k.
I'd be interested to know the outcome re whether the action was lawful given the communication.
If they elect him, they deserve everything they get.
For sure Jenrick is horrific. But "less corrupt than Robert Jenrick" doesn't sell a PM to me any more than "less paedophilic than Jimmy Savile" sells a babysitter.
That comparison seems to me only to have meaning if you can show in some way that the current PM is in some way corrupt, so that is the choice to be made. Otherwise it is rhetoric.
Can you demonstrate that?
I regard gifts to politicians, of clothes or wallpaper, as corruption. If this were a local businessman bunging a local councillor I would hope and expect the pair would go to prison.
Can you comment further on that - I think that line may be in the wrong place enough to obscure the real problem, has no role for transparency aka Registration of Interests, and ignores that the key feature of corruption is a payback for the 'donor'.
So at one end Ed Davey not paying an entry fee to the water park where he did his Election Stunt, or an MP getting Guest Entry to a football match Lower-Twistleton-Under-Piddle FC where the ticket costs £2 is corruption, even if declared.
Further along the 'gift' scale we have Mrs Starmer's dress paid for by the donor, David Cameron's purchase of a £3500 suit for a discounted £1100 *, or Samantha Cameron's wearing of a £1500 dress which she did not buy with a benefit of either the gift or the use for one evening. She is on record as saying she did not have disposable income for designer clothes. **
Compare to Jenrick who attempted to give a payback to Desmond worth £45m, when receiving a donation.
Where's the quid pro quo payback for the donors in the other cases? What do you see the role of a Register of Interests to be?
I think humanity ticks along on the basis of reciprocal obligations. If you buy someone a drink you expect to get one back, and so on. A politician has no business accepting gifts with an intention to reciprocate and doesn't look too good accepting them with no such intention. Have both a register of interests and a cash value upper limit of £200.
I accept that some instances are more egregious than others. I am happy to accuse Starmer of greed and bad judgement but not actually corruption if that helps.
It's the bad judgement that frustrates me. Did he not notice the complaints about people paying for Boris Johnson's flat redecoration?
He should do, he took part in this photo op over it.
So we have to assume that Starmer has the moral blindness which makes some people think it's okay for them to do x, y and z, because they know that they are incorruptible, while they criticise other people for doing the same, because it obviously looks super dodgy and weird for the PM to receive large financial gifts from people. How can it not?
It's a failure of theory of mind. It's just really mediocre.
Absolutely, and the defence his colleagues were trotting out for him on the rounds yesterday was feeble. They must have been embarrassed having to deliver those repudiations on his behalf. It doesn't reflect too well on them either.
Fourteen years for the Labour party in opposition. I can't imagine that they spent many of those thousands of days looking forward to justifying a Labour Prime Minister receiving large personal gifts from a wealthy donor.
Sounds like a nice CGT windfall for Reeves. Winners all round!
Nah, he will buy the First Lady some fancy knickers and an exemption applying to his case will coincidentally crop up in the budget. You have a lot to learn about life in a banana republic.
Appearance of corruption was Robert Jenrick I think.
In personal communication with Richard Desmond re: a planning decision, then used his Housing Minister position to approve the Planning Permission on Westferry, which would have helped Desmond avoid £45m in tax - payable to Tower Hamlets if it had been approved one day later.
Then 2 weeks later accepted a donation from Desmond of £12k.
I'd be interested to know the outcome re whether the action was lawful given the communication.
If they elect him, they deserve everything they get.
For sure Jenrick is horrific. But "less corrupt than Robert Jenrick" doesn't sell a PM to me any more than "less paedophilic than Jimmy Savile" sells a babysitter.
That comparison seems to me only to have meaning if you can show in some way that the current PM is in some way corrupt, so that is the choice to be made. Otherwise it is rhetoric.
Can you demonstrate that?
I regard gifts to politicians, of clothes or wallpaper, as corruption. If this were a local businessman bunging a local councillor I would hope and expect the pair would go to prison.
Can you comment further on that - I think that line may be in the wrong place enough to obscure the real problem, has no role for transparency aka Registration of Interests, and ignores that the key feature of corruption is a payback for the 'donor'.
So at one end Ed Davey not paying an entry fee to the water park where he did his Election Stunt, or an MP getting Guest Entry to a football match Lower-Twistleton-Under-Piddle FC where the ticket costs £2 is corruption, even if declared.
Further along the 'gift' scale we have Mrs Starmer's dress paid for by the donor, David Cameron's purchase of a £3500 suit for a discounted £1100 *, or Samantha Cameron's wearing of a £1500 dress which she did not buy with a benefit of either the gift or the use for one evening. She is on record as saying she did not have disposable income for designer clothes. **
Compare to Jenrick who attempted to give a payback to Desmond worth £45m, when receiving a donation.
Where's the quid pro quo payback for the donors in the other cases? What do you see the role of a Register of Interests to be?
I think humanity ticks along on the basis of reciprocal obligations. If you buy someone a drink you expect to get one back, and so on. A politician has no business accepting gifts with an intention to reciprocate and doesn't look too good accepting them with no such intention. Have both a register of interests and a cash value upper limit of £200.
I accept that some instances are more egregious than others. I am happy to accuse Starmer of greed and bad judgement but not actually corruption if that helps.
It's the bad judgement that frustrates me. Did he not notice the complaints about people paying for Boris Johnson's flat redecoration?
He should do, he took part in this photo op over it.
So we have to assume that Starmer has the moral blindness which makes some people think it's okay for them to do x, y and z, because they know that they are incorruptible, while they criticise other people for doing the same, because it obviously looks super dodgy and weird for the PM to receive large financial gifts from people. How can it not?
It's a failure of theory of mind. It's just really mediocre.
Absolutely, and the defence his colleagues were trotting out for him on the rounds yesterday was feeble. They must have been embarrassed having to deliver those repudiations on his behalf. It doesn't reflect too well on them either.
It shows a political tin ear at the very least.
No one really cares what the PM wears if they make a reasonable job of being PM. And a £10k makeover won't do anything to ameliorate duff policies.
Meanwhile LD leader Sir Ed Davey joins former Conservative PM Boris Johnson and Defence Secretaries Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps in urging Starmer, Biden and other NATO leaders to allow Ukraine to send Storm Shadow missiles into Russia
They can urge what they want but it's up to Biden and the gang at Foggy Bottom, not SKS.
European (including UK) reliance on US infrastructure for essential national security is something that should be concentrating minds across the continent - and indeed, should have been for the last decade, at least.
It should be clear that Europe cannot rely even on Democrat administrations to hold the line, never mind Republican ones. And with the US understandably increasingly concerned about Eastern Asia and the Pacific, that's not entirely unreasonable. Europe would need to up its self-reliance even without the outbreak of Trumpite insanity within the Republicans.
But the extent of European reliance on US satellite and intelligence data, and military hardware (the two often being interlinked) should be unacceptable. It's an obvious Trump power lever, for one thing; one he will be willing to pull for his own ends if he actually understands its effectiveness (which is merely a matter of his own and his team's curiosity).
Obviously, the remedy to that will be extremely expensive and means replicating many of the US systems, including manufacturing. It also means the diplomatic difficulty of telling the US that Europe doesn't trust it. It also means military and political co-operation across Europe that will be difficult in current circumstances. None of those are reasons for not doing it, other than to craven politicians who prefer burying their heads in the sand to protecting their countries. I hope, behind the scenes, it's already happening.
To replicate Starshield/starlink looks like lots of tens of billions of quid. The control Musk and Trump are going to have over the world if things go wrong in November is frightening even if you consider both of them sane.
Several tens of billions would not be a silly price to pay for replicating reusable launch capabilities. We should be part of that effort; it would be far more useful than a couple of aircraft carriers, for example.
It’s been estimated that the entire Starship/Super Heavy launch system development is costing about $1 Billion dollars per year.
(Snip)
To get those sort of figures, even as an 'independent'; you need to believe what Musk says. So the question becomes *why* you trust what Musk says.
As for us developing such a thing in the UK: there are many issues aside from politics; technically, geographically, industrially, and personnel-wise.
I don’t believe Musk has publicly commented on the overall cost of the Starship/Super Heavy program.
The numbers come from two analyses of SpaceX. One was from Payload Research, the other from Eurospace. The later is especially interesting, since they are naturally hostile to SpaceX. The methodology comes looking at numbers of people hired, wages etc.
Given the deals with Australia, it would be quite easy to get them interested in a joint program. They are interested in the field themselves. That gives you a lot of potential locations.
Stoke managed to build and fire a FFSC engine with double digit engineers (I heard 27) on that part of the project. That’s a large shed of people.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
The more you read about Routh the more you think he really seemed like quite a nice guy. He was once given an award by the police for defending a woman against an alleged rapist and was described as a “ super citizen “. His concern about Ukraine seemed very heartfelt and it’s hard to believe how he ended up with an AK47 allegedly intent on shooting Trump.
Sounds like he was obsessed with the idea of life as Good vs. Evil in place of all other modes of thinking. Once people think they're on a mission...
Suspended Sentence for Huw Edwards. Cat A images, custody threshold crossed. However immediate custodial is deemed not necessary and no structured program is necessary.
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
The classic was a “Cow Lane”, near Oxford. Which has a mention in the Doomsday Book, IIRC, for having cows driven along it.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
"So, let’s do something. Let’s commit never again to lockdown children. Let’s ban smartphones in school. Let’s follow Australia: impose a higher, tougher age limit on social media. Phones are frying undeveloped brains, and it’s strange that the British government – so keen to control sugar or vaping – has given up on controlling their use. Even odder that so many parents have, too."
Well, yes. Pensionerism is the dominant force in British politics and one would expect "BAN THEM" to be a slam-dunk. But people are strange and insist that what they do is perfectly normal but other people are strange. So i don't know how this will work out.
Although I do have to congratulate Tim Stanley for a Gordian Knot solution. @Luckyguy1983 has expressed his frustration at "oh its complicated" reasons for doing nothing and I'm beginning to share it.
Suspended Sentence for Huw Edwards. Cat A images, custody threshold crossed. However immediate custodial is deemed not necessary and no structured program is necessary.
He has a good legal team.
Any mention of prisons being full in the calculation?
Obviously, the remedy to that will be extremely expensive and means replicating many of the US systems, including manufacturing. It also means the diplomatic difficulty of telling the US that Europe doesn't trust it. It also means military and political co-operation across Europe that will be difficult in current circumstances. None of those are reasons for not doing it, other than to craven politicians who prefer burying their heads in the sand to protecting their countries. I hope, behind the scenes, it's already happening.
This is all true, but nobody wants to pay for strategic autonomy and it's a guaranteed election losing prospectus. If DJT wins then SKS will gargle his nuts to get a bilateral defence agreement if necessary.
There is no bilateral anything with Trump. There is no agreement that can be trusted. There is no guarantee that he won't leverage the same things he's previously promised in order to extract further concessions.
Besides, I don't think opposing that kind of investment is an election-winning prospectus. Being seen as 'weak on defence' has frequently been an election-losing prospectus (in the UK at least).
I'm still watching for some thoughtful commentary on Trump's potential impact on Five Eyes, given that we already know that he regards USA secret information as things that he is entitled to sell for personal gain when he is President, and the Supreme Court to which he manipulated appointments has declared that he will not practically be able to be prosecuted.
Thank God for the 22nd amendment. My hope is people will mislead, disobey and ignore him as necessary while running the clock down to 2028.
The 22nd Amendment is not the safeguard a lot of people think it is, particularly with this Supreme Court. There are ways round it.
Is there anything to prevent, say, Trump running as VP on a ticket after completing a second term and then serving as president when the president steps down?
Russia's term limits have not proved too much of a difficulty to Putin.
That's the most obvious route by which it could be done (he could also just remain as VP and run things from there, a la Putin-Medvedev 2008-12, though that's not really Trump's style. Nor Putin's these days).
The argument against it is the provision in the 12th amendment that no person is eligible to be VP who is not eligible to be president. However, the 22nd amendment merely says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say that they are barred outright and cannot inherit the presidency by some other means than election, nor does it place a bar on the same people being elected as VP. That's probably enough wriggle room for a former president barred under the 22nd, to be let through by the (this) SCOTUS to stand to be VP.
As far as I can tell it's up to the States who they put on the ballot, and the amendment didn't explicitly say that the States can't put someone on the ballot paper. So I don't believe this Supreme Court would force a State to take Trump off the ballot paper in 2028, if he was elected in 2024.
Their argument on the 16th amendment case was that it was basically up to Congress to enforce that bit of the Constitution, and nothing to do with the Supreme Court, so if Trump wins election to a third term in 2028, and that was certified by Congress - I do not think the Supreme Court would order the result to be set aside.
The Equal Protection clause is probably the means by which the SCOTUS could issue and enforce a nation-wide ruling on whether a candidate is "constitutionally ineligible" (the relevant phrase in the 12th Amendment). States can have their own eligibility criteria but they would have to be legitimately state-specific (eg x number of subscribers and a deposit paid of $y).
I think you mean 14th amendment case (ie about insurrection). That's a much easier case to kick over to Congress as Congress itself has the power to overrule the restriction, which it could do at any time; an insurrectionist is only ever provisionally barred from office, subject to the necessary relieving Congressional vote. By contrast, the two-elections bar is an absolute one. On both though, a national ruling is necessary, by whatever authority.
In terms of process, it's possible that Trump could, in theory, try to simply ignore the 22nd, run for a third term and claim that (1) Congress can certify whatever votes it wants, for whoever it wants (it can), and that (2) the SCOTUS doesn't have the power to oversee / countermand such a count, however inadequately conducted (arguable but tenable), and that therefore it couldn't rule on whether a candidate who should be barred is actually barred - but I don't think that works, or only does so after the national vote. He'd almost certainly struggle to get onto the ballots in enough states in the first place, and perhaps none. And the question of his legitimacy would dog him through the election and the strategy also be a lottery in terms of the outcome of the Congressional election (given that the new Congress would conduct the count). Much better to have a firm answer in advance.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
Meanwhile LD leader Sir Ed Davey joins former Conservative PM Boris Johnson and Defence Secretaries Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps in urging Starmer, Biden and other NATO leaders to allow Ukraine to send Storm Shadow missiles into Russia
They can urge what they want but it's up to Biden and the gang at Foggy Bottom, not SKS.
European (including UK) reliance on US infrastructure for essential national security is something that should be concentrating minds across the continent - and indeed, should have been for the last decade, at least.
It should be clear that Europe cannot rely even on Democrat administrations to hold the line, never mind Republican ones. And with the US understandably increasingly concerned about Eastern Asia and the Pacific, that's not entirely unreasonable. Europe would need to up its self-reliance even without the outbreak of Trumpite insanity within the Republicans.
But the extent of European reliance on US satellite and intelligence data, and military hardware (the two often being interlinked) should be unacceptable. It's an obvious Trump power lever, for one thing; one he will be willing to pull for his own ends if he actually understands its effectiveness (which is merely a matter of his own and his team's curiosity).
Obviously, the remedy to that will be extremely expensive and means replicating many of the US systems, including manufacturing. It also means the diplomatic difficulty of telling the US that Europe doesn't trust it. It also means military and political co-operation across Europe that will be difficult in current circumstances. None of those are reasons for not doing it, other than to craven politicians who prefer burying their heads in the sand to protecting their countries. I hope, behind the scenes, it's already happening.
To replicate Starshield/starlink looks like lots of tens of billions of quid. The control Musk and Trump are going to have over the world if things go wrong in November is frightening even if you consider both of them sane.
Several tens of billions would not be a silly price to pay for replicating reusable launch capabilities. We should be part of that effort; it would be far more useful than a couple of aircraft carriers, for example.
It’s been estimated that the entire Starship/Super Heavy launch system development is costing about $1 Billion dollars per year.
(Snip)
To get those sort of figures, even as an 'independent'; you need to believe what Musk says. So the question becomes *why* you trust what Musk says.
As for us developing such a thing in the UK: there are many issues aside from politics; technically, geographically, industrially, and personnel-wise.
I don’t believe Musk has publicly commented on the overall cost of the Starship/Super Heavy program.
The numbers come from two analyses of SpaceX. One was from Payload Research, the other from Eurospace. The later is especially interesting, since they are naturally hostile to SpaceX. The methodology comes looking at numbers of people hired, wages etc.
Given the deals with Australia, it would be quite easy to get them interested in a joint program. They are interested in the field themselves. That gives you a lot of potential locations.
Stoke managed to build and fire a FFSC engine with double digit engineers (I heard 27) on that part of the project. That’s a large shed of people.
Have them grab half their engineers from SpaceX / Blue Origin, and the other half from F1 teams. Yes it’s still rocket science, but if everyone is of the right mindset then things can move very quickly.
Unlike when SpaceX were doing this a decade or more ago, it’s now much more of a solved problem and there’s a lot of knowledge out there as to how to make rockets re-usable.
Suspended Sentence for Huw Edwards. Cat A images, custody threshold crossed. However immediate custodial is deemed not necessary and no structured program is necessary.
6 months suspended for 2 years.
He has a good legal team.
The best legal team licence payers money can buy...
Suspended Sentence for Huw Edwards. Cat A images, custody threshold crossed. However immediate custodial is deemed not necessary and no structured program is necessary.
He has a good legal team.
Any mention of prisons being full in the calculation?
No, the Judge is reported as saying a custodial is unecessary even though the threshold has been crossed. Lots of mitigation based on mental health, past issues, past paternal relationship etc etc.
Huw Edwards about to be sentenced by the magistrates, not sent to Crown Court.
His lawyer says he has mental health issues and is very sorry.
Everyone is once they get caught.
He has a "Neuro cognitive disorder which has impaired his judgement" according to the defence.
Very popular these days. Was a specific disorder listed, or is kiddyfiddling just now generically "mentally ill" as opposed to a crime committed by a bad man with mens rea?
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
It’s a huge problem with noisy hobbies. Almost every small local airfield or motorsports venue has a constant nightmare with local residents campaigning to get them shut down.
Venues that have been doing their activities for many decades, and often residents of more recent appearance in the area.
Sorry Mr & Mrs Newbie, did your property searches manage to totally miss that airport half a mile away from your new house?
After we moved here, a children's playground was established close to our small back garden. The playground is for young children and Mrs C and I rather enjoy the sound of small children at play. There's the odd wail of course, but mainly it's laughter.
A funny one, I heard of, was that new residents, protesting about the London Glider Club, tried to get Luton Airport to join them in demanding that it be shut down.
They got quite upset when the controllers at Luton said they had a great working relationship with the club.
I mean I understand that he was in the zone and deserves all the opprobrium he receives but didn't he specifically say "nothing illegal" in his requests. Or has that been overtaken by other evidence.
Suspended Sentence for Huw Edwards. Cat A images, custody threshold crossed. However immediate custodial is deemed not necessary and no structured program is necessary.
6 months suspended for 2 years.
He has a good legal team.
The best legal team licence payers money can buy...
Do you have a link to that? I thought his legal costs were out of his own pocket.
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
The classic was a “Cow Lane”, near Oxford. Which has a mention in the Doomsday Book, IIRC, for having cows driven along it.
Yes, people move there and complain.
Mind you if you move near to Gropec&ntlane, you may have a bit more of a case for complaint...
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
Suspended Sentence for Huw Edwards. Cat A images, custody threshold crossed. However immediate custodial is deemed not necessary and no structured program is necessary.
6 months suspended for 2 years.
He has a good legal team.
The best legal team licence payers money can buy...
Do you have a link to that? I thought his legal costs were out of his own pocket.
Presumably "out of his own pocket" will be the millions he's pocketed from the licence payer for reading a tele-prompter for the past 30 years?
Huw Edwards about to be sentenced by the magistrates, not sent to Crown Court.
His lawyer says he has mental health issues and is very sorry.
Everyone is once they get caught.
He has a "Neuro cognitive disorder which has impaired his judgement" according to the defence.
Very popular these days. Was a specific disorder listed, or is kiddyfiddling just now generically "mentally ill" as opposed to a crime committed by a bad man with mens rea?
I only was following the summaries on twitter so it was just mentioned as a "volatile mental disorder"
I am not sure if it is classed as mentally ill if you are a pauper on legal aid.
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
It’s a huge problem with noisy hobbies. Almost every small local airfield or motorsports venue has a constant nightmare with local residents campaigning to get them shut down.
Venues that have been doing their activities for many decades, and often residents of more recent appearance in the area.
Sorry Mr & Mrs Newbie, did your property searches manage to totally miss that airport half a mile away from your new house?
After we moved here, a children's playground was established close to our small back garden. The playground is for young children and Mrs C and I rather enjoy the sound of small children at play. There's the odd wail of course, but mainly it's laughter.
A funny one, I heard of, was that new residents, protesting about the London Glider Club, tried to get Luton Airport to join them in demanding that it be shut down.
They got quite upset when the controllers at Luton said they had a great working relationship with the club.
Ha, half the ATCs at the airport were probably members of the local gliding club!
Suspended Sentence for Huw Edwards. Cat A images, custody threshold crossed. However immediate custodial is deemed not necessary and no structured program is necessary.
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
The classic was a “Cow Lane”, near Oxford. Which has a mention in the Doomsday Book, IIRC, for having cows driven along it.
Yes, people move there and complain.
Mind you if you move near to Gropec&ntlane, you may have a bit more of a case for complaint...
Aka Magpie Lane?
Well, the bank did change into a noisy eatery of some kind, I suppose...
Huw Edwards about to be sentenced by the magistrates, not sent to Crown Court.
His lawyer says he has mental health issues and is very sorry.
Everyone is once they get caught.
He has a "Neuro cognitive disorder which has impaired his judgement" according to the defence.
Very popular these days. Was a specific disorder listed, or is kiddyfiddling just now generically "mentally ill" as opposed to a crime committed by a bad man with mens rea?
I only was following the summaries on twitter so it was just mentioned as a "volatile mental disorder"
I am not sure if it is classed as mentally ill if you are a pauper on legal aid.
Hang on, privileged people using the mental health system as an off ramp isn’t believable, we were told just the other day.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
He's saying you'd fit in the back of an FV103.
This is why we need to get Trump back in so he gives HMF a grant to upgrade to soft-skinned mini metros.
Suspended Sentence for Huw Edwards. Cat A images, custody threshold crossed. However immediate custodial is deemed not necessary and no structured program is necessary.
6 months suspended for 2 years.
He has a good legal team.
The best legal team licence payers money can buy...
Do you have a link to that? I thought his legal costs were out of his own pocket.
Presumably "out of his own pocket" will be the millions he's pocketed from the licence payer for reading a tele-prompter for the past 30 years?
I'm guessing the Beeb has no chance of getting back the £200K it feebly requested from him.
Suspended Sentence for Huw Edwards. Cat A images, custody threshold crossed. However immediate custodial is deemed not necessary and no structured program is necessary.
6 months suspended for 2 years.
He has a good legal team.
The best legal team licence payers money can buy...
Do you have a link to that? I thought his legal costs were out of his own pocket.
Presumably "out of his own pocket" will be the millions he's pocketed from the licence payer for reading a tele-prompter for the past 30 years?
I'm guessing the Beeb has no chance of getting back the £200K it feebly requested from him.
I don't suppose he thinks it would redeem him. They'll be paying his pension at some point, of course.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
The problem is that the minority are very vocal and determined. And rapidly discover ways to slow things down in The Process.
There's a couple of (Tories) in my apartment block who are agitating to get the Residents Association to come out against the Cambs-Oxon rail project "because it will increase the number of trains that come along the line".
YOU BOUGHT A FLAT PRACTICALLY NEXT TO THE RAILWAY STATION ADJACENT TO THE RAIL LINE YOU NUMPTY.
NIMBYism definitely crosses party boundaries.
There are people around here who move into villages and then object to bell ringing and the movement of livestock along and across roads.
There was a popular 250 or thereabouts year old pub locally next to which, about fifteen years ago, someone built a house. He then complained of the noise from the pub, particularly on Saturday nights.
It’s a huge problem with noisy hobbies. Almost every small local airfield or motorsports venue has a constant nightmare with local residents campaigning to get them shut down.
Venues that have been doing their activities for many decades, and often residents of more recent appearance in the area.
Sorry Mr & Mrs Newbie, did your property searches manage to totally miss that airport half a mile away from your new house?
After we moved here, a children's playground was established close to our small back garden. The playground is for young children and Mrs C and I rather enjoy the sound of small children at play. There's the odd wail of course, but mainly it's laughter.
A funny one, I heard of, was that new residents, protesting about the London Glider Club, tried to get Luton Airport to join them in demanding that it be shut down.
They got quite upset when the controllers at Luton said they had a great working relationship with the club.
Ha, half the ATCs at the airport were probably members of the local gliding club!
A lot of airline pilots and retired airline pilots when I went to the club.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
That is a good point really and before taking office, given the sleaze issues surrounding the Major govt, Blair and his team were far more vocal about standards than SKS ever has been.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
I really don't see the problem with a supplier providing Lady Starmer with free clothing in the hope that the publicity will result in additional sales.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
"So, let’s do something. Let’s commit never again to lockdown children. Let’s ban smartphones in school. Let’s follow Australia: impose a higher, tougher age limit on social media. Phones are frying undeveloped brains, and it’s strange that the British government – so keen to control sugar or vaping – has given up on controlling their use. Even odder that so many parents have, too."
Far more than any dubious notions of "woke", the term "nanny state" has done untold damage. Sometimes, and I say this with all due deference to the libertarians and the other so-called "defenders of free speech" here, people need to be told what to do and people need to be told what's good for them.
Now, what individuals choose to do with the information provided is up to them but not providing the information for fear of being labelled "interfering" or whatever is just plain wrong.
While we're on about freedom of speech, I saw Anne Widdecombe on her hobby horse about the "right to offend" and the "right to be offended". In theory, yes, in practice, no. The problem is the right to offend is too often used by the same people to offned/demonise other individuals/groups who don't have the right to reply or respond. GBN gives the likes of Widdecombe, Farage, Dolan and others a platform - I think it should be compelled to provide an equal amount of broadcasting time to their opponents.
We have free speech - we don't have fair speech. Too many voices remain excluded because they don't share the views of the wealthy or the powerful. The plural part of plural democracy remains lacking - even on here, I suspect a disproportionately large number of posts are made by a disproportionately small number of posters.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
I really don't see the problem with a supplier providing Lady Starmer with free clothing in the hope that the publicity will result in additional sales.
Indeed. I don't really get this 'story' at all. Where is the sleaze here? If a very rich Labour peer wants to pay for the first lady's wardrobe so she looks good on the international stage, why shouldn't he?
If he has demanded anything in return for that (e.g. favours etc) then that's a different matter, but as far as I can see there is no suggestion he has.
Granted, Sir Keir has made an apparent blunder by only declaring his own clobber and not Victoria's – but that would seem to be fairly small beer, an administrative cockup.
Sounds like a nice CGT windfall for Reeves. Winners all round!
Nah, he will buy the First Lady some fancy knickers and an exemption applying to his case will coincidentally crop up in the budget. You have a lot to learn about life in a banana republic.
Appearance of corruption was Robert Jenrick I think.
In personal communication with Richard Desmond re: a planning decision, then used his Housing Minister position to approve the Planning Permission on Westferry, which would have helped Desmond avoid £45m in tax - payable to Tower Hamlets if it had been approved one day later.
Then 2 weeks later accepted a donation from Desmond of £12k.
I'd be interested to know the outcome re whether the action was lawful given the communication.
If they elect him, they deserve everything they get.
For sure Jenrick is horrific. But "less corrupt than Robert Jenrick" doesn't sell a PM to me any more than "less paedophilic than Jimmy Savile" sells a babysitter.
That comparison seems to me only to have meaning if you can show in some way that the current PM is in some way corrupt, so that is the choice to be made. Otherwise it is rhetoric.
Can you demonstrate that?
I regard gifts to politicians, of clothes or wallpaper, as corruption. If this were a local businessman bunging a local councillor I would hope and expect the pair would go to prison.
Can you comment further on that - I think that line may be in the wrong place enough to obscure the real problem, has no role for transparency aka Registration of Interests, and ignores that the key feature of corruption is a payback for the 'donor'.
So at one end Ed Davey not paying an entry fee to the water park where he did his Election Stunt, or an MP getting Guest Entry to a football match Lower-Twistleton-Under-Piddle FC where the ticket costs £2 is corruption, even if declared.
Further along the 'gift' scale we have Mrs Starmer's dress paid for by the donor, David Cameron's purchase of a £3500 suit for a discounted £1100 *, or Samantha Cameron's wearing of a £1500 dress which she did not buy with a benefit of either the gift or the use for one evening. She is on record as saying she did not have disposable income for designer clothes. **
Compare to Jenrick who attempted to give a payback to Desmond worth £45m, when receiving a donation.
Where's the quid pro quo payback for the donors in the other cases? What do you see the role of a Register of Interests to be?
I think humanity ticks along on the basis of reciprocal obligations. If you buy someone a drink you expect to get one back, and so on. A politician has no business accepting gifts with an intention to reciprocate and doesn't look too good accepting them with no such intention. Have both a register of interests and a cash value upper limit of £200.
I accept that some instances are more egregious than others. I am happy to accuse Starmer of greed and bad judgement but not actually corruption if that helps.
It's the bad judgement that frustrates me. Did he not notice the complaints about people paying for Boris Johnson's flat redecoration?
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
I mean I understand that he was in the zone and deserves all the opprobrium he receives but didn't he specifically say "nothing illegal" in his requests. Or has that been overtaken by other evidence.
He did say "no underage" at one point. But then said "go on" in reply to an offer of "young" images later.
First offence, benefit of the doubt - it's the kind of situation a suspended sentence is designed for.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
I really don't see the problem with a supplier providing Lady Starmer with free clothing in the hope that the publicity will result in additional sales.
Indeed. I don't really get this 'story' at all. Where is the sleaze here? If a very rich Labour peer wants to pay for the first lady's wardrobe so she looks good on the international stage, why shouldn't he?
If he has demanded anything in return for that (e.g. favours etc) then that's a different matter, but as far as I can see there is no suggestion he has.
Granted, Sir Keir has made an apparent blunder by only declaring his own clobber and not Victoria's – but that would seem to be fairly small beer, an administrative cockup. Watergate it ain't.
Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.
As a former lawyer and DPP he should have countless ethics briefings about this.
I give this briefing regularly, I am happy to brief the Starmers on this, my rates are reasonable.
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Yes, I think the Starmers always look smart and well turned out for whatever event they attend. Johnson was an embarrassing slob. Angela Rayner has commented on that many times: that she wouldn't dream of turning up for work without brushing her hair. Why should he get away with it?
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
What's a hooker?
The person that stands between the tight head prop and the loose head prop.
Interesting who this kind of reputational damage sticks to and who it doesnt. Both Tony and Cherie were well renowned 'grabbers'. Neither coming from proper money, solicited and gladly chomped through whatever they could, but it didnt hurt Tony in office. Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
During Blair's time the economic situation was generally favourable and they were able spray money around so people didn't care very much about the Blairs "grabbing"
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
Pensioners have been mollycoddled for far too long.
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Can anyone looking really tell the difference between someone whose clothes cost £150 and someone whose clothes cost £1500? If they can, that says rather more about the observer than the observed.
Well lots of people can. You might not be interested in fashion but lots of people are and can easily tell the difference.
You mean some people have way more money than sense?
I see I am going to have to extend the remit of my support beyond Donald J and encompass Elon Musk also. Apart from people on here having multiple and serial conniption fits about him, I just saw the clip of him on Twitter saying how, rather than donating to Trump, he wanted to ensure that there are free and fair elections and that people are enabled to vote.
The bastard.
Are you 100% sure that Musk's record on supporting democratic elections and opposing the attempted insurrection on 6th January is as entire as it needs to be for anyone claiming to be just helping out the democratic process.
Are you 100% sure Musk will accept the result in November?
Toppers is just gently trolling.
That's incredibly likely. The annual convention of One Nation Hard Remainer Conservatives who are on Team Trump could be held in a phone box.
What's a phone box.
Where hookers used to leaving their calling cards.
What's a hooker?
Cleveland Street scandal
"At the trial, Euston admitted that when walking along Piccadilly a tout had given him a card which read "Poses plastiques. C. Hammond, 19 Cleveland Street". Euston testified that he went to the house believing Poses plastiques meant a display of female nudes. He paid a sovereign to get in but upon entering Euston said he was appalled to discover the "improper" nature of the place [homosexual brothel] and immediately left."
Very important in these situations to know exactly what you are getting into.
Comments
The argument against it is the provision in the 12th amendment that no person is eligible to be VP who is not eligible to be president. However, the 22nd amendment merely says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say that they are barred outright and cannot inherit the presidency by some other means than election, nor does it place a bar on the same people being elected as VP. That's probably enough wriggle room for a former president barred under the 22nd, to be let through by the (this) SCOTUS to stand to be VP.
My daughter in law's father died of MND but managed to attend her wedding in 2015 in Kelona but passed away 2 months later
MPs and other elected people rightly have to declare donations, gifts and the like. Personally, I'd argue that MPs should be subject to the same rules as councillors when it comes to 'interests'. However, transparency is really the key to this and the public have a pretty decent sense of what's fair and what's not (Starmer declaring late *is* a failure he should be criticised for but let's keep things in perspective). A party supporter gifting clothes or similar to a PM or their family, assuming there's no return in terms of office, honours, patronage or whatever, seems pretty innocuous to me. The PM and their spouse are expected to attend social engagements for which outfits could be quite a burden to someone on not a huge salary (by the standards of others who'd be at the same sort of thing), and where they're expected to 'represent the country'. In the absence of a more generous allowance from the state for social paraphanalia, donations from rich friends should be a relatively uncontroversial way of resolving the problem.
One of the complaints was that neighbours would hear the noise of the children outside in the garden during break times. Anyone who's been close to a nursery will know they are even quieter and less shouty than children's playgrounds. I mean virtually inaudible, and the noises you do hear are typically quiet burbling and the occasional cry.
Still, I suppose we benefited (as did the nursery - they bought a ruin, sat on it for 2 years and spent a bit on an architect and planning application, then sold it again unchanged for a £200k profit).
Near neighbours might find the peal unappealing...
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/sep/16/lloyds-sent-my-37000-to-the-duchy-of-cornwall-and-i-cant-get-it-back
* autocorrect wants to rename it Ducky.
Our daughter had a miscarriage before her first was born, and that upsets her even today no matter she has 21 and 15 year daughter and son
Their argument on the 16th amendment case was that it was basically up to Congress to enforce that bit of the Constitution, and nothing to do with the Supreme Court, so if Trump wins election to a third term in 2028, and that was certified by Congress - I do not think the Supreme Court would order the result to be set aside.
He has a "Neuro cognitive disorder which has impaired his judgement" according to the defence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56932548
That’s a strong indication that his legal team are expecting him to go to prison.
So we have to assume that Starmer has the moral blindness which makes some people think it's okay for them to do x, y and z, because they know that they are incorruptible, while they criticise other people for doing the same, because it obviously looks super dodgy and weird for the PM to receive large financial gifts from people. How can it not?
It's a failure of theory of mind. It's just really mediocre.
Absolutely, and the defence his colleagues were trotting out for him on the rounds yesterday was feeble. They must have been embarrassed having to deliver those repudiations on his behalf. It doesn't reflect too well on them either.
So I would think that would mitigate even though the ages of some of the children was rather young according to the Standard report. One being between 7 and 9.
"So, let’s do something. Let’s commit never again to lockdown children. Let’s ban smartphones in school. Let’s follow Australia: impose a higher, tougher age limit on social media. Phones are frying undeveloped brains, and it’s strange that the British government – so keen to control sugar or vaping – has given up on controlling their use. Even odder that so many parents have, too."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/15/parents-are-making-their-children-sick-with-anguish/
Is that what it was all for?
No one really cares what the PM wears if they make a reasonable job of being PM.
And a £10k makeover won't do anything to ameliorate duff policies.
Zelenskyy makes do with a T-shirt, FFS.
The numbers come from two analyses of SpaceX. One was from Payload Research, the other from Eurospace. The later is especially interesting, since they are naturally hostile to SpaceX. The methodology comes looking at numbers of people hired, wages etc.
Given the deals with Australia, it would be quite easy to get them interested in a joint program. They are interested in the field themselves. That gives you a lot of potential locations.
Stoke managed to build and fire a FFSC engine with double digit engineers (I heard 27) on that part of the project. That’s a large shed of people.
6 months suspended for 2 years.
He has a good legal team.
Yes, people move there and complain.
Although I do have to congratulate Tim Stanley for a Gordian Knot solution. @Luckyguy1983 has expressed his frustration at "oh its complicated" reasons for doing nothing and I'm beginning to share it.
I think you mean 14th amendment case (ie about insurrection). That's a much easier case to kick over to Congress as Congress itself has the power to overrule the restriction, which it could do at any time; an insurrectionist is only ever provisionally barred from office, subject to the necessary relieving Congressional vote. By contrast, the two-elections bar is an absolute one. On both though, a national ruling is necessary, by whatever authority.
In terms of process, it's possible that Trump could, in theory, try to simply ignore the 22nd, run for a third term and claim that (1) Congress can certify whatever votes it wants, for whoever it wants (it can), and that (2) the SCOTUS doesn't have the power to oversee / countermand such a count, however inadequately conducted (arguable but tenable), and that therefore it couldn't rule on whether a candidate who should be barred is actually barred - but I don't think that works, or only does so after the national vote. He'd almost certainly struggle to get onto the ballots in enough states in the first place, and perhaps none. And the question of his legitimacy would dog him through the election and the strategy also be a lottery in terms of the outcome of the Congressional election (given that the new Congress would conduct the count). Much better to have a firm answer in advance.
Unlike when SpaceX were doing this a decade or more ago, it’s now much more of a solved problem and there’s a lot of knowledge out there as to how to make rockets re-usable.
Definitely no two-tier justice system, not at all, now move along please, nothing to see here…
South west Ruritania's more absurd privileges can be legislated away quite easily.
They got quite upset when the controllers at Luton said they had a great working relationship with the club.
Man given two-year suspended sentence for possessing more than 62,000 indecent images of children
https://www.hampshire.police.uk/news/hampshire/news/news/2023/april/man-given-two-year-suspended-sentence-for-possessing-more-than-62000-indecent-images-of-children/
I am not sure if it is classed as mentally ill if you are a pauper on legal aid.
Well, the bank did change into a noisy eatery of some kind, I suppose...
Victoria Starmer has been pictured at a London Fashion Week show wearing a custom-made designer dress amid a row over her receiving free clothes.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/style/lady-starmer-wears-custom-made-dress-at-london-fashion-week-amid-free-clothes-row/ar-AA1qEBCC?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Starmer doesnt seem to have any kind of honeymoon protection at all.
Lord and Lady Starmer swanning around in the finest clothes someone else's money can buy while pensioners are going to freeze this winter is a rather harder "sell"
We’re all in this together.
We had a PM in Boris Johnson that dressed like a scruff, it’s good for the UK for a PM to wear the best.
Far more than any dubious notions of "woke", the term "nanny state" has done untold damage. Sometimes, and I say this with all due deference to the libertarians and the other so-called "defenders of free speech" here, people need to be told what to do and people need to be told what's good for them.
Now, what individuals choose to do with the information provided is up to them but not providing the information for fear of being labelled "interfering" or whatever is just plain wrong.
While we're on about freedom of speech, I saw Anne Widdecombe on her hobby horse about the "right to offend" and the "right to be offended". In theory, yes, in practice, no. The problem is the right to offend is too often used by the same people to offned/demonise other individuals/groups who don't have the right to reply or respond. GBN gives the likes of Widdecombe, Farage, Dolan and others a platform - I think it should be compelled to provide an equal amount of broadcasting time to their opponents.
We have free speech - we don't have fair speech. Too many voices remain excluded because they don't share the views of the wealthy or the powerful. The plural part of plural democracy remains lacking - even on here, I suspect a disproportionately large number of posts are made by a disproportionately small number of posters.
If he has demanded anything in return for that (e.g. favours etc) then that's a different matter, but as far as I can see there is no suggestion he has.
Granted, Sir Keir has made an apparent blunder by only declaring his own clobber and not Victoria's – but that would seem to be fairly small beer, an administrative cockup.
Watergate it ain't.
https://x.com/archrose90/status/1835386613796315410
First offence, benefit of the doubt - it's the kind of situation a suspended sentence is designed for.
As a former lawyer and DPP he should have countless ethics briefings about this.
I give this briefing regularly, I am happy to brief the Starmers on this, my rates are reasonable.
"At the trial, Euston admitted that when walking along Piccadilly a tout had given him a card which read "Poses plastiques. C. Hammond, 19 Cleveland Street". Euston testified that he went to the house believing Poses plastiques meant a display of female nudes. He paid a sovereign to get in but upon entering Euston said he was appalled to discover the "improper" nature of the place [homosexual brothel] and immediately left."
Very important in these situations to know exactly what you are getting into.