Under Labour... Smithfield and Billingsgate to close. Vauxhall shuts Luton.... What next. It won't be the last.....
Is this to be set to the tune of Letter From America?
Clarkson tax dodge no more, Dyson tax dodge no more Etc
Smithfield and Billingsgate has nothing to do with the Government - the City of London has simply demonstrated that if you only have a few people you can't run multiple projects at the same time...
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
The weird thing is the more complicated they became the more likely they became to be man made, but as pieces of art they are stunning. I recall that the early ones had people like Terrence Meaden believing in air vortices etc as a mode of creation. The pranksters then showed just why this wouldn't work... I also love the fact that some people persist in trying to separate the 'faked' ones from the 'real' ones, even now. If you haven't been there is a brilliant exhibit near Honey Street (Pewsey way) on this. Its very much a believers exhibit, but fun to visit.
I go to Honeystreet nearly every Sunday to deliver parcels, normally between Alton Barnes (villages that sound like US golfers) and Woodborough
Honeystreet is kind of crazy. It's a lovely hamlet on a canal, and it's a sort of hippy/traveller commune (hence unsurprising that it hosts the crop circle centre)
If anyone is tempted to go to Honeystreet, I'd recommend a very short extension on the trip to Alton Barnes to see the tiny Saxon church there, and the White Horse on the way to Stanton St Bernard (could be another US golfer?)
Forget the hippies - give me the view from Knap Hill any day. (A bit to the north, it overlooks the Vale of Pewsey).
But yes, the church and Horse.
I love the walk over Knap Hill, and the drive just to the south under it from Wilcot to Alton Priors
This isn't the worst part of the world to be a postie
Thanks for this tip. One of my unrealised ambitions is to walk the K&A from Reading to Bath, finishing with a pint or two at the Saracen's Head. Really must get around to it while I still have knees that can bend, albeit reluctantly.
New job started today. Therapeutic interventions in a primary school. Small groups of 4-7. Years 3, 4, 5 and 6. Absolutely loved it. Can't wait for tomorrow.
New job started today. Therapeutic interventions in a primary school. Small groups of 4-7. Years 3, 4, 5 and 6. Absolutely loved it. Can't wait for tomorrow.
New job started today. Therapeutic interventions in a primary school. Small groups of 4-7. Years 3, 4, 5 and 6. Absolutely loved it. Can't wait for tomorrow.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
No, it broke several windows and ruined several properties and businesses.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
No, it broke several windows and ruined several properties and businesses.
Businesses that weren’t already underwater? It was a stupid thing to do, but I’m surprised if it has done more than exacerbate flood damage.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
No, it broke several windows and ruined several properties and businesses.
Businesses that weren’t already underwater? It was a stupid thing to do, but I’m surprised if it has done more than exacerbate flood damage.
Doors and windows that were holding the water level inside at a lower level were broken or forced open.
I believe I can now speak authoritatively for the “voice of the farmer” having spent 2 hours with the tax committee of a group of the country’s largest landed estates, talking about APR.
They’re certainly not a group of revolutionary Corbynites.
However I am not at liberty to repeat what any of them said so my newfound rock-solid authority on farming opinion about this issue comes with no evidence or anything of particular use to the debate on PB.
Though I heard one quite good quip when we were talking about excluded assets. “Companies need that £5 million cash balance because one never knows when there might be the next global pandemic or a Labour government”
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
No, it broke several windows and ruined several properties and businesses.
Businesses that weren’t already underwater? It was a stupid thing to do, but I’m surprised if it has done more than exacerbate flood damage.
Doors and windows that were holding the water level inside at a lower level were broken or forced open.
Fair enough, but they were already flooded. The guys a part, and no mistake, but I didn’t see exploding doors and windows on the vid, as was claimed.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
No, it broke several windows and ruined several properties and businesses.
Businesses that weren’t already underwater? It was a stupid thing to do, but I’m surprised if it has done more than exacerbate flood damage.
Doors and windows that were holding the water level inside at a lower level were broken or forced open.
Certainly seemed to be travelling faster than would have been expected. And from my experience of serious flooding (1953) mud causes as much trouble as the water.
New job started today. Therapeutic interventions in a primary school. Small groups of 4-7. Years 3, 4, 5 and 6. Absolutely loved it. Can't wait for tomorrow.
How the f*** has that school found the money.
Not that I'm complaining because intervention started early is way cheaper than when children are older and it's a real problem - but I'm surprised the school has the budget..
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
No, it broke several windows and ruined several properties and businesses.
Businesses that weren’t already underwater? It was a stupid thing to do, but I’m surprised if it has done more than exacerbate flood damage.
in theory you can protect the door and be 100% protected until the windows shattered..
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
58% to 13% in favour of the Farmers on the IHT issue in the latest polling. And that includes 49% of Labour voters.
Whatever you might personally think about the policy it is clear it is not popular with the public in general. Not that a Government with 4 years to go to an election will be concerned about polling right now. But I find it amusing that you are so concerned as to try and create a false narrative over the popularity (or otherwise) of the measure.
I'm not trying to create a false narrative, I simply hadn't heard anyone mention it in my 'lefty-liberal' bubble (as HYUFD put it), here in rural Dorset. None of the people I saw at Citizens Advice last week mentioned it, funnily enough.
But I stand corrected by the poll you and HY have shared. Surprised, as I said, but corrected.
I do however hope the government hold their nerve on this one. In the medium term it will make farms more affordable to those who really want to farm, rather than use a farm as a tax avoidance scheme.
No, it will lead to more family farms being sold to large agri corporations
The solution is the @Malmesbury compromise: IHT is not payable so long as it remains owned by the family. Should someone buy a farm for the purpose of avoiding tax, and it is therefore sold soon after being inherited then tax becomes payable.
Which was also Dan Neidle's conclusion - a taper that reduces IHT based on length in years the land was held after inheritance
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
No, it broke several windows and ruined several properties and businesses.
Businesses that weren’t already underwater? It was a stupid thing to do, but I’m surprised if it has done more than exacerbate flood damage.
in theory you can protect the door and be 100% protected until the windows shattered..
In theory yes, I’ve seen flood doors etc, but I doubt that this is the case here. Huge sympathy for those flooded as it must be awful and this guy has made it worse. I still haven’t seen exploding doors and windows though!
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
58% to 13% in favour of the Farmers on the IHT issue in the latest polling. And that includes 49% of Labour voters.
Whatever you might personally think about the policy it is clear it is not popular with the public in general. Not that a Government with 4 years to go to an election will be concerned about polling right now. But I find it amusing that you are so concerned as to try and create a false narrative over the popularity (or otherwise) of the measure.
I'm not trying to create a false narrative, I simply hadn't heard anyone mention it in my 'lefty-liberal' bubble (as HYUFD put it), here in rural Dorset. None of the people I saw at Citizens Advice last week mentioned it, funnily enough.
But I stand corrected by the poll you and HY have shared. Surprised, as I said, but corrected.
I do however hope the government hold their nerve on this one. In the medium term it will make farms more affordable to those who really want to farm, rather than use a farm as a tax avoidance scheme.
I am always a bit suspicious on polling on taxes and spending cuts. Without alternatives to the same sum it is just like polling on whether people want free money.
For example I would to see a question like: Would you oppose the budget removing relief for farmers and adding 2% to Employers NI if it meant 3p on income tax or freezing state pensions for the next X years?
Clever bit of adding a completely unrelated policy to try and justify your numbers.
The money has to come from someone, up to the public whether they want to vote for tax avoidance schemes for the very wealthy allied to reduced services and higher taxes for themselves (like in the USA) or eliminating tax avoidance for the wealthy and higher employers NI allied to maintaining services. To govern is to choose and we elected a government on the basis that they would choose to sort out public services. I can't see Clarkson waving away the ambulance to A&E when he has some stupid TV stunt-related farming accident.
In fact Clarkson's career path, BBC presenter, driving cars on UK roads was underwritten by the UK taxpayer.
This argument holds no water at all as long as the Government refuse to properly tax multinationals. There is no 'fairness' in the tax system when Amazon and Google can sit down over lunch with HMRC to 'discuss' how much tax they should pay.
That feels a bit too much like whataboutery to me. I agree we have a problem with taxing multinationals (within a wider problem of democratic governance of multinationals, or rather lack of). But that doesn't invalidate Dopermean's point - where we do have control over taxation we should use that agency to make political decisions, and our elected government is deciding to tax those with unusually high asset values at the point when those assets change hands. The fact that they can't get Amazon to pay tax seems a bit irrelevant to this.
I does indeed invalidate his point. It has been obvious for years that we needed to sort out the taxation of multinationals and to their shame the last Government did nothing about it. It is an obvious way toraise significant amounts of money and yet the current government would rather attack inheritence - which will damage many and raise little. So Doperman asks where else the money can come from and I gave him an answer - or at least one of several.
But the attack on farmers and family businesses is driven by ideology and ignorance so I don't expect the supporters of this government to even try to understand or to accept any alternative.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
No, it broke several windows and ruined several properties and businesses.
Businesses that weren’t already underwater? It was a stupid thing to do, but I’m surprised if it has done more than exacerbate flood damage.
in theory you can protect the door and be 100% protected until the windows shattered..
In theory yes, I’ve seen flood doors etc, but I doubt that this is the case here. Huge sympathy for those flooded as it must be awful and this guy has made it worse. I still haven’t seen exploding doors and windows though!
The BBC footage showed a window bursting from the wash from an internal CCTV but the interior already had several feet of water in it. I tend to agree that the extra damage is being overstated but it was unbelievably stupid.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
58% to 13% in favour of the Farmers on the IHT issue in the latest polling. And that includes 49% of Labour voters.
Whatever you might personally think about the policy it is clear it is not popular with the public in general. Not that a Government with 4 years to go to an election will be concerned about polling right now. But I find it amusing that you are so concerned as to try and create a false narrative over the popularity (or otherwise) of the measure.
I'm not trying to create a false narrative, I simply hadn't heard anyone mention it in my 'lefty-liberal' bubble (as HYUFD put it), here in rural Dorset. None of the people I saw at Citizens Advice last week mentioned it, funnily enough.
But I stand corrected by the poll you and HY have shared. Surprised, as I said, but corrected.
I do however hope the government hold their nerve on this one. In the medium term it will make farms more affordable to those who really want to farm, rather than use a farm as a tax avoidance scheme.
I am always a bit suspicious on polling on taxes and spending cuts. Without alternatives to the same sum it is just like polling on whether people want free money.
For example I would to see a question like: Would you oppose the budget removing relief for farmers and adding 2% to Employers NI if it meant 3p on income tax or freezing state pensions for the next X years?
Clever bit of adding a completely unrelated policy to try and justify your numbers.
It's true though.
Badenoch has supported Labour's spending plans while opposing the tax rises needed.
She should say what she would do differently, but won't.
I think there is a way forward on AR along the lines of exempting from IHT agricultural land where the estate holder lived and also declared the majority of earnings from agriculture over the preceeding 7 years.
I prefer the rather more brutal method of introducing CGT at 40% on the sale of farms. It would certainly stop non farming investors if they thought their money would be tied up permanently in an asset that could only be realised with a 40% hit.
That wouldn't work if there was no increase in value. For example a tax dodging Millionaires estate could be sold at purchase price to another millionaire after death, with no IHT or CGT paid.
It would also impact real farmers who wanted to sell up.
Exempting those who both live on the farm and also can prove that it was the majority of their income for the last 7 years is better. Clarkson and Dyson would have to cough up, the Archers of Ambridge would not.
If it makes no money it is not an investment. They might as well put it in the bank and get 1% interest. So your argument is rather stupid. And if a farmer is selling up then the argument against CGT - on an asset they preseumably inherited tax free and which will be worth several million - seems rather counter to the whole point which is to make people pay for unearned wealth. They will still walk away millionaires. Instead you want to force people out of business. I think your moral compass is rather warped.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
No, it broke several windows and ruined several properties and businesses.
Businesses that weren’t already underwater? It was a stupid thing to do, but I’m surprised if it has done more than exacerbate flood damage.
in theory you can protect the door and be 100% protected until the windows shattered..
In theory yes, I’ve seen flood doors etc, but I doubt that this is the case here. Huge sympathy for those flooded as it must be awful and this guy has made it worse. I still haven’t seen exploding doors and windows though!
The BBC footage showed a window bursting from the wash from an internal CCTV but the interior already had several feet of water in it. I tend to agree that the extra damage is being overstated but it was unbelievably stupid.
I see that bit now - opens a door and sloshes some more muddy water into a shop filled with muddy water…
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
This is like cancelling Hard Talk, it will save 27p, but designed deliberately to piss off influential people to kick up a fuss.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
That is annoying. I look at that stuff frequently. At the moment it is available from other sources for free but that may be because a free source made it impossible to charge for it. That may well change.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
That is annoying. I look at that stuff frequently. At the moment it is available from other sources for free but that may be because a free source made it impossible to charge for it. That may well change.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
No, it broke several windows and ruined several properties and businesses.
Businesses that weren’t already underwater? It was a stupid thing to do, but I’m surprised if it has done more than exacerbate flood damage.
in theory you can protect the door and be 100% protected until the windows shattered..
In theory yes, I’ve seen flood doors etc, but I doubt that this is the case here. Huge sympathy for those flooded as it must be awful and this guy has made it worse. I still haven’t seen exploding doors and windows though!
The BBC footage showed a window bursting from the wash from an internal CCTV but the interior already had several feet of water in it. I tend to agree that the extra damage is being overstated but it was unbelievably stupid.
I see that bit now - opens a door and sloshes some more muddy water into a shop filled with muddy water…
The dangerous driving I didn't understand, but apparently:
In subsections (1) and (2) above "dangerous" refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property.
TIL. I'm prepared for some cries of "two-tier" when this guy gets a stiffer penalty than someone maiming a cyclist.
New job started today. Therapeutic interventions in a primary school. Small groups of 4-7. Years 3, 4, 5 and 6. Absolutely loved it. Can't wait for tomorrow.
How the f*** has that school found the money.
Not that I'm complaining because intervention started early is way cheaper than when children are older and it's a real problem - but I'm surprised the school has the budget..
Ours is not to question why. Ours is but to play games, colour in, talk about friendships and co operatively build Lego...
That and I'm f***ing cheap. Need one of me in every Primary.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
That is annoying. I look at that stuff frequently. At the moment it is available from other sources for free but that may be because a free source made it impossible to charge for it. That may well change.
My point proved ;-)
Not sure. Am I “influential” or just under the influence? Hic
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
That is annoying. I look at that stuff frequently. At the moment it is available from other sources for free but that may be because a free source made it impossible to charge for it. That may well change.
And if people go to other websites for financial market data they're likely to use them for other things as well.
Not to mention that the people who look at financial market data include many influential people, all of whom the BBC have now inconvenienced.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
"This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences."
How? How the fuck is that "ending delivery" meaning the BBC is deliering value for its audiences that wanted data supplied in this format? Do you really believe that, BBC? No you don't. So stop insulting our intelligence.
New job started today. Therapeutic interventions in a primary school. Small groups of 4-7. Years 3, 4, 5 and 6. Absolutely loved it. Can't wait for tomorrow.
How the f*** has that school found the money.
Not that I'm complaining because intervention started early is way cheaper than when children are older and it's a real problem - but I'm surprised the school has the budget..
Ours is not to question why. Ours is but to play games, colour in, talk about friendships and co operatively build Lego...
Plus I'm f***ing cheap.
Oh I know you are cheap but I've looked at a few school budgets recently and they are all in belt tightening mode...
And as I've said you are worthwhile at twice the price especially if the intervention is early enough to have an impact...
Am pretty sure delayed marker data feed is very cheap to purchase access to ($100s a year), particularly at the level of detail the BBC displayed it, as there is no real value to actual traders, who want very detailed historic data and live data feed.
I bet they spend more on trains/ taxis on one Saturday to get MoTD presenters to Salford than data feed access.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
"This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences."
How? How the fuck is that "ending delivery" meaning the BBC is deliering value for its audiences that wanted data supplied in this format? Do you really believe that, BBC? No you don't. So stop insulting our intelligence.
Must have used the same PR agency as these guys...
Chris Hayward, policy chairman of the City of London Corporation, said the decision represented a "positive new chapter" for the markets as it "empowers traders to build a sustainable future in premises that align with their long-term business goals".
On topic: I've only just noticed this is article 1 of 2, yet deals with only 2 out of 26 letters alphabetically. That's quite remarkable. Not sure we can draw any conclusions but interesting nonetheless.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
"This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences."
How? How the fuck is that "ending delivery" meaning the BBC is deliering value for its audiences that wanted data supplied in this format? Do you really believe that, BBC? No you don't. So stop insulting our intelligence.
I'm the first to conplain about the BBC, but I'll back it here. What is the BBC providing which Yahoo finance or Motley Fool isn't? If we must have a broadcaster paid for by extracting money with menaces, let it focus on things its commercial rivals can't or won't.
Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam, elected a fortnight ago, did not outline the exact issues he had with the deal, which still needs to be finalised in a treaty, but a cabinet minister said there were problems with the lease arrangement.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
That is annoying. I look at that stuff frequently. At the moment it is available from other sources for free but that may be because a free source made it impossible to charge for it. That may well change.
My point proved ;-)
Conversely, it didn't occur to me the BBC provuded this information. Which possibly also proves your point.
I remember being fascinated as a teenager by share prices on Ceefax. It was an age of less instant gratification.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
That is annoying. I look at that stuff frequently. At the moment it is available from other sources for free but that may be because a free source made it impossible to charge for it. That may well change.
My point proved ;-)
Conversely, it didn't occur to me the BBC provuded this information. Which possibly also proves your point.
I remember being fascinated as a teenager by share prices on Ceefax. It was an age of less instant gratification.
The fact that the BBC doesn’t feel the need to pass on share information tells you everything you need to know about how little engagement we, as a nation, have with our pension funds.
Long term investment and planning in this country would be so much better if pension funds were activist shareholders and driven by their own investors.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
Turn the sound up... You see a door implode and a window explode and a guy says "wow" as it happens
Someone did some amateur investigative journalism at a Marriott hotel being used to house refugees, and Marriott’s customer service bot has started replying to people saying that they won’t be giving Marriott any more business.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
Because you live in a left liberal echo chamber, 58% of voters back the farmers, most people don't give a shit about a tractor being driven through a puddle
That comment about driving thru a puddle is not funny. He probably caused tens of thousands of pounds of damage if not worse and was a danger to life. When I was a youngster we were flooded and the army turned up in amphibious vehicles. We stopped them coming down because of the wash. Our flood was not as bad but a land rover going through sent a wave not much less than a metre through the house. That tractor was doing far worse. It would have smashed doors, windows and done huge damage inside the shops.
Watch the video and you see doors and windows exploding as the bow wave hits.
Utterly reckless.
He deserves 10 years for criminal damage and a Confiscation Order of all his assets to cover the cost of his arrogance.
I don’t see doors and windows ‘exploding’, I see water splashing against stuff. What am I missing? He was surely a part but it looked like all the properties were under at least 4 feet of water as it is. I doubt he’s done that much extra damage.
Turn the sound up... You see a door implode and a window explode and a guy says "wow" as it happens
I’m not seeing what you are seeing re a door imploding (unless you mean the door at the end being opened?). I see lots of splashing of water.
What's the back story to the i spelling? Even the most right on BBC and Guardian who struggle to call terrorists, terrorists, spell it with an e. Although I notice the FT use the i spelling.
Someone did some amateur investigative journalism at a Marriott hotel being used to house refugees, and Marriott’s customer service bot has started replying to people saying that they won’t be giving Marriott any more business.
Thank you for reaching out, Charlotte. We would like to look into this for you. Please DM us with your Bonvoy number, full name, email address, and past stay seen on the account, along with details of your experience.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
"This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences."
How? How the fuck is that "ending delivery" meaning the BBC is deliering value for its audiences that wanted data supplied in this format? Do you really believe that, BBC? No you don't. So stop insulting our intelligence.
I'm the first to conplain about the BBC, but I'll back it here. What is the BBC providing which Yahoo finance or Motley Fool isn't? If we must have a broadcaster paid for by extracting money with menaces, let it focus on things its commercial rivals can't or won't.
Well, if you want people to log out of the BBC and go elsewhere, it's a strategy I guess.
What's the betting some twenty-something asked at a Monday morning meeting "Why are we doing share prices? Isn't that, like, for rich capitalist types? Who else gives a shit?"
And nobody else at that Monday morning meeting could think of a reason to give a shit...not even that it would drive business away from their site.
Someone did some amateur investigative journalism at a Marriott hotel being used to house refugees, and Marriott’s customer service bot has started replying to people saying that they won’t be giving Marriott any more business.
Thank you for reaching out, Charlotte. We would like to look into this for you. Please DM us with your Bonvoy number, full name, email address, and past stay seen on the account, along with details of your experience.
It is, of course, worth remembering that Marriott won't actually own these hotels.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
58% to 13% in favour of the Farmers on the IHT issue in the latest polling. And that includes 49% of Labour voters.
Whatever you might personally think about the policy it is clear it is not popular with the public in general. Not that a Government with 4 years to go to an election will be concerned about polling right now. But I find it amusing that you are so concerned as to try and create a false narrative over the popularity (or otherwise) of the measure.
I'm not trying to create a false narrative, I simply hadn't heard anyone mention it in my 'lefty-liberal' bubble (as HYUFD put it), here in rural Dorset. None of the people I saw at Citizens Advice last week mentioned it, funnily enough.
But I stand corrected by the poll you and HY have shared. Surprised, as I said, but corrected.
I do however hope the government hold their nerve on this one. In the medium term it will make farms more affordable to those who really want to farm, rather than use a farm as a tax avoidance scheme.
No, it will lead to more family farms being sold to large agri corporations
The solution is the @Malmesbury compromise: IHT is not payable so long as it remains owned by the family. Should someone buy a farm for the purpose of avoiding tax, and it is therefore sold soon after being inherited then tax becomes payable.
Which was also Dan Neidle's conclusion - a taper that reduces IHT based on length in years the land was held after inheritance
I think the situation was summed up by one of the proponents of the current policy here.
Who said that my suggestion wouldn’t raise enough money immediately.
They need farms to be sold on death, to get the IHT.
What's the back story to the i spelling? Even the most right on BBC and Guardian who struggle to call terrorists, terrorists, spell it with an e. Although I notice the FT use the i spelling.
Some parts of the US government seem to use Hizballah, so maybe Starmer's gone for a half-way house between that and Hezbollah.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
Someone did some amateur investigative journalism at a Marriott hotel being used to house refugees, and Marriott’s customer service bot has started replying to people saying that they won’t be giving Marriott any more business.
Thank you for reaching out, Charlotte. We would like to look into this for you. Please DM us with your Bonvoy number, full name, email address, and past stay seen on the account, along with details of your experience.
It is, of course, worth remembering that Marriott won't actually own these hotels.
I have no context apart from a link to a dead-end tweet. So can't say.
I think we can all agree that it's time we got rid of a pointless anachronistic element in our upper chamber whereby irrelevant figures from an ignored institution keep popping up with annoying sermons.
Yes, let's abolish the Cameronite hasbeens from the Lords.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
58% to 13% in favour of the Farmers on the IHT issue in the latest polling. And that includes 49% of Labour voters.
Whatever you might personally think about the policy it is clear it is not popular with the public in general. Not that a Government with 4 years to go to an election will be concerned about polling right now. But I find it amusing that you are so concerned as to try and create a false narrative over the popularity (or otherwise) of the measure.
I'm not trying to create a false narrative, I simply hadn't heard anyone mention it in my 'lefty-liberal' bubble (as HYUFD put it), here in rural Dorset. None of the people I saw at Citizens Advice last week mentioned it, funnily enough.
But I stand corrected by the poll you and HY have shared. Surprised, as I said, but corrected.
I do however hope the government hold their nerve on this one. In the medium term it will make farms more affordable to those who really want to farm, rather than use a farm as a tax avoidance scheme.
No, it will lead to more family farms being sold to large agri corporations
The solution is the @Malmesbury compromise: IHT is not payable so long as it remains owned by the family. Should someone buy a farm for the purpose of avoiding tax, and it is therefore sold soon after being inherited then tax becomes payable.
This would set up a new industry for lawyers to arrange for 60 year old multi millionaire tax dodgers to be adopted by 85 year old farmers.
I think we can all agree that it's time we got rid of a pointless anachronistic element in our upper chamber whereby irrelevant figures from an ignored institution keep popping up with annoying sermons.
Yes, let's abolish the Cameronite hasbeens from the Lords.
Harriet Harman criticising the CoE is quite amusing for those remembering her unfortunate flirtation with PiE in the 70's and 80's.
Germany charges four for setting up Hamas weapons depots across Europe
Prosecution says suspects had ties to senior Hamas leaders and established several arms caches that would be available for use in terror attacks against Israeli and Jewish sites
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
On topic: I've only just noticed this is article 1 of 2, yet deals with only 2 out of 26 letters alphabetically. That's quite remarkable. Not sure we can draw any conclusions but interesting nonetheless.
C and D equal half of the Irish Constituencies. There are also quite a few beginning with W.
Another Tory talking about removing bishops from the Lords.
It is happening.
No it is not. A plurality of Tory MPs joined the majority of Labour MPs to keep Bishops in the House of Lords and Williamson's amendment was comfortably defeated even as most Tory MPs also voted against Labour's Bill to remove the hereditary peers which was sadly passed.
The Lords can't overturn the will of the elected Commons and to be honest if we remove the Bishops too from the Lords I say we should just elect the whole thing and stop it becoming largely a retirement home for ex politicians like the tedious Baroness Morgan
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
"This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences."
How? How the fuck is that "ending delivery" meaning the BBC is deliering value for its audiences that wanted data supplied in this format? Do you really believe that, BBC? No you don't. So stop insulting our intelligence.
I'm the first to conplain about the BBC, but I'll back it here. What is the BBC providing which Yahoo finance or Motley Fool isn't? If we must have a broadcaster paid for by extracting money with menaces, let it focus on things its commercial rivals can't or won't.
Its because the BBC is funded in such a way that it should be providing useful information.
Likewise it would be wrong for the BBC to stop providing sports scores or weather reports that could be found on other websites.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
Likewise, I wouldn't go around calling someone's God as a "stupid made up sky fairy" even though I'm an atheist, fit exactly the same reason: basic courtesy.
How much training would an employee need to be considered safe to operate a chainsaw to clear a fallen tree?
A fair bit. I use chainsaws all the time and it takes time and repetition to get used to the basic rules.
For one, don't move your feet until the brake is on. Even a small step.
Keep two hands on the chainsaw at all times. The hand on the upper grip is there to ensure that if the chainsaw bucks your knuckles will push the brake on so it doesn't hit you in the face.
The rules are relatively simple and obvious but they are not instinctive. Getting people into the habit of always following them so it becomes instinctive takes time.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
Does anybody care about Star Wars now that Disney have trashed it?
George Lucas does...
He will just have to console himself with always being the person behind the original 3 movies, that are timeless classics, and the $5bn he made out of them....
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
58% to 13% in favour of the Farmers on the IHT issue in the latest polling. And that includes 49% of Labour voters.
Whatever you might personally think about the policy it is clear it is not popular with the public in general. Not that a Government with 4 years to go to an election will be concerned about polling right now. But I find it amusing that you are so concerned as to try and create a false narrative over the popularity (or otherwise) of the measure.
I'm not trying to create a false narrative, I simply hadn't heard anyone mention it in my 'lefty-liberal' bubble (as HYUFD put it), here in rural Dorset. None of the people I saw at Citizens Advice last week mentioned it, funnily enough.
But I stand corrected by the poll you and HY have shared. Surprised, as I said, but corrected.
I do however hope the government hold their nerve on this one. In the medium term it will make farms more affordable to those who really want to farm, rather than use a farm as a tax avoidance scheme.
I am always a bit suspicious on polling on taxes and spending cuts. Without alternatives to the same sum it is just like polling on whether people want free money.
For example I would to see a question like: Would you oppose the budget removing relief for farmers and adding 2% to Employers NI if it meant 3p on income tax or freezing state pensions for the next X years?
Clever bit of adding a completely unrelated policy to try and justify your numbers.
It's true though.
Badenoch has supported Labour's spending plans while opposing the tax rises needed.
She should say what she would do differently, but won't.
I think there is a way forward on AR along the lines of exempting from IHT agricultural land where the estate holder lived and also declared the majority of earnings from agriculture over the preceeding 7 years.
I prefer the rather more brutal method of introducing CGT at 40% on the sale of farms. It would certainly stop non farming investors if they thought their money would be tied up permanently in an asset that could only be realised with a 40% hit.
That wouldn't work if there was no increase in value. For example a tax dodging Millionaires estate could be sold at purchase price to another millionaire after death, with no IHT or CGT paid.
It would also impact real farmers who wanted to sell up.
Exempting those who both live on the farm and also can prove that it was the majority of their income for the last 7 years is better. Clarkson and Dyson would have to cough up, the Archers of Ambridge would not.
If it makes no money it is not an investment. They might as well put it in the bank and get 1% interest. So your argument is rather stupid. And if a farmer is selling up then the argument against CGT - on an asset they preseumably inherited tax free and which will be worth several million - seems rather counter to the whole point which is to make people pay for unearned wealth. They will still walk away millionaires. Instead you want to force people out of business. I think your moral compass is rather warped.
If the money is in the bank and forms part of an estate then it is liable to IHT if above the threshold. If it is in agricultural land under your CGT idea it would not not be, if it was static in value. It would make a fine tax dodge.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
Likewise, I wouldn't go around calling someone's God as a "stupid made up sky fairy" even though I'm an atheist, fit exactly the same reason: basic courtesy.
Indeed, though if someone wanted to be a dick and do that, it shouldn't be a public concern so long as no threats are involved. People are (or should be) allowed to be rude, and face only social judgement for it.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
Just when farmers were starting to get public sympathy over IHT, that guy loses it for them.
Really? I don't hear much sympathy for them, apart from confirmed Tories.
58% to 13% in favour of the Farmers on the IHT issue in the latest polling. And that includes 49% of Labour voters.
Whatever you might personally think about the policy it is clear it is not popular with the public in general. Not that a Government with 4 years to go to an election will be concerned about polling right now. But I find it amusing that you are so concerned as to try and create a false narrative over the popularity (or otherwise) of the measure.
I'm not trying to create a false narrative, I simply hadn't heard anyone mention it in my 'lefty-liberal' bubble (as HYUFD put it), here in rural Dorset. None of the people I saw at Citizens Advice last week mentioned it, funnily enough.
But I stand corrected by the poll you and HY have shared. Surprised, as I said, but corrected.
I do however hope the government hold their nerve on this one. In the medium term it will make farms more affordable to those who really want to farm, rather than use a farm as a tax avoidance scheme.
No, it will lead to more family farms being sold to large agri corporations
The solution is the @Malmesbury compromise: IHT is not payable so long as it remains owned by the family. Should someone buy a farm for the purpose of avoiding tax, and it is therefore sold soon after being inherited then tax becomes payable.
This would set up a new industry for lawyers to arrange for 60 year old multi millionaire tax dodgers to be adopted by 85 year old farmers.
So their money is stuck in a farm forever. Not much of a tax dodge, that.
Bit like the time that someone claimed the Lt. Col. Oliver North dodged the draft for Vietnam. Well, he kinda did. By voluntarily joining the Marine Corps….
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
Does anybody care about Star Wars now that Disney have trashed it?
I have taken against LucasFilm since covid, when they decided the lovely hand-signed pop-up Christmas cards they sent to suppliers, including yours truly, could in perpetuity be replaced by an email with a picture in it.
Sadly they are traceable, otherwise I'd flog them.
How much training would an employee need to be considered safe to operate a chainsaw to clear a fallen tree?
A fair bit. I use chainsaws all the time and it takes time and repetition to get used to the basic rules.
For one, don't move your feet until the brake is on. Even a small step.
Keep two hands on the chainsaw at all times. The hand on the upper grip is there to ensure that if the chainsaw bucks your knuckles will push the brake on so it doesn't hit you in the face.
The rules are relatively simple and obvious but they are not instinctive. Getting people into the habit of always following them so it becomes instinctive takes time.
Okay, so it sounds like it might not be effective to train people to use them as a contingency, as you'd want them to be using them regularly to keep the safety habits strong.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
Does anybody care about Star Wars now that Disney have trashed it?
George Lucas does...
He will just have to console himself with always being the person behind the original 3 movies, that are timeless classics, and the $5bn he made out of them....
People are even giving the prequels more of a shot than they used to. They were never as bad as people claimed (which is not to say they are outright good - I'd say there's at least a good movie's worth across the three films, and can rewatch them with sincere enjoyment).
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
I enjoyed the sequels, but there's not a huge amount of depth to the Star Wars universe. It was always a fairly simple story told in primary colours and with strong contrasts.
That makes it hard to use as the basis of a continuing franchise, and they've done amazingly well to mine it as much as they have.
How much training would an employee need to be considered safe to operate a chainsaw to clear a fallen tree?
A fair bit. I use chainsaws all the time and it takes time and repetition to get used to the basic rules.
For one, don't move your feet until the brake is on. Even a small step.
Keep two hands on the chainsaw at all times. The hand on the upper grip is there to ensure that if the chainsaw bucks your knuckles will push the brake on so it doesn't hit you in the face.
The rules are relatively simple and obvious but they are not instinctive. Getting people into the habit of always following them so it becomes instinctive takes time.
It's a bit how long is a piece of string. Forestry is big business and my school friends who do it wear special trousers that stop you lopping your own leg off. At least put some eye protection on.
Someone did some amateur investigative journalism at a Marriott hotel being used to house refugees, and Marriott’s customer service bot has started replying to people saying that they won’t be giving Marriott any more business.
Did anyone see Matthew Syed's latest Sunday Times article? I can think of at least one person on PB who might not necessarily approve wholeheartedly of it.
Covid inquiry still going, with no end in sight, such that the lawyers earn fortunes and politicians are long gone when the findings are published, making a mockery of accountability too. This isn’t a leaning exercise; it’s an establishment stitchup"
"Preening lawyers have ensured we learn nothing from inquiries Seeing KCs run rings round public servants who battled Covid is a costly, overrated form of entertainment"
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
I enjoyed the sequels, but there's not a huge amount of depth to the Star Wars universe. It was always a fairly simple story told in primary colours and with strong contrasts.
That makes it hard to use as the basis of a continuing franchise, and they've done amazingly well to mine it as much as they have.
I think kind of the opposite on the final point. I know some hardcore Star Wars nerds, who could tell me all about the hundreds of old extended universe stuff, and I feel like they could have easily done core movies, and then 1 side story movie a year at least without saturating things, as there's plenty to dig into.
But because Solo sucked they dropped that approach in favour of overdoing too many TV series at once or in close succession, and like Marvel it was just too much and not enough quality to spread around for that. Add in an aggressive approach to fanboys not enjoying things and not bringing on enough new fans to compensate, and the brand value has to be down.
How much training would an employee need to be considered safe to operate a chainsaw to clear a fallen tree?
A fair bit. I use chainsaws all the time and it takes time and repetition to get used to the basic rules.
For one, don't move your feet until the brake is on. Even a small step.
Keep two hands on the chainsaw at all times. The hand on the upper grip is there to ensure that if the chainsaw bucks your knuckles will push the brake on so it doesn't hit you in the face.
The rules are relatively simple and obvious but they are not instinctive. Getting people into the habit of always following them so it becomes instinctive takes time.
I'm trying to imagine the scenarios where there is a need for chainsaw use 'all the time' with their legitimate purpose.
How much training would an employee need to be considered safe to operate a chainsaw to clear a fallen tree?
A fair bit. I use chainsaws all the time and it takes time and repetition to get used to the basic rules.
For one, don't move your feet until the brake is on. Even a small step.
Keep two hands on the chainsaw at all times. The hand on the upper grip is there to ensure that if the chainsaw bucks your knuckles will push the brake on so it doesn't hit you in the face.
The rules are relatively simple and obvious but they are not instinctive. Getting people into the habit of always following them so it becomes instinctive takes time.
I'm trying to imagine the scenarios where there is a need for chainsaw use 'all the time' with their legitimate purpose.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
The whole thing is a dumpster fire made out of dumpster fires. With occasional good bits. Rogue One was actually watchable.
The joined up thinking is beyond modern Holyweird. See the intense fights put up by executives over The Expanse - they hated everything that made it worth watching.
For @algarkirk (fpt) - the U.K. government is not a party to the FWS case.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
It's basic human courtesy to address people in the manner they wish to be addressed.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
It is, up to a point. If a human being wanted me to address them as if they were a real life cat or dog, I wouldn't do it.
Did anyone see Matthew Syed's latest Sunday Times article? I can think of at least one person on PB who might not necessarily approve wholeheartedly of it.
Covid inquiry still going, with no end in sight, such that the lawyers earn fortunes and politicians are long gone when the findings are published, making a mockery of accountability too. This isn’t a leaning exercise; it’s an establishment stitchup"
"Preening lawyers have ensured we learn nothing from inquiries Seeing KCs run rings round public servants who battled Covid is a costly, overrated form of entertainment"
Same as almost every inquiry in history.
As Sir Humphrey famously said,"A basic rule of government is never look into anything you don't have to, and never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be."
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
The whole thing is a dumpster fire made out of dumpster fires. With occasional good bits. Rogue One was actually watchable.
The joined up thinking is beyond modern Holyweird. See the intense fights put up by executives over The Expanse - they hated everything that made it worth watching.
IMO Andor was the best of the Disney tv shows* and they kept that in the can for a couple of years because they didn't think it was really good enough and all the other garbage they put out was far better.
* It was a strange series, where half the episodes were very dark and dystopian and interesting with the likes of Andy Serkis, mixed with some episodes of very lightweight nonsense.
I think we can all agree that it's time we got rid of a pointless anachronistic element in our upper chamber whereby irrelevant figures from an ignored institution keep popping up with annoying sermons.
Yes, let's abolish the Cameronite hasbeens from the Lords.
Well played.
I maintain of all my suggestions for reform of the Lords, without getting rid of it entirely, the easiest to do anda best would be to simply prevent anyone who has been an MP from serving in the Lords for at least 10 years or two terms (whichever is longer).
Why extend the parliamentary careers of retiring or defeated MPs as a matter of course in many cases? Have the delay and one they have to earn their place with non-parliamentary works, and two the gap will give them perspective rather than retaining their MP attitudes and intensity which is not well suited for the Lords.
And it would eliminate bribing past it old duffers to retire by kicking them upstairs when they have nothing more to contribute. Force parties to deselect those who are past it.
What's the back story to the i spelling? Even the most right on BBC and Guardian who struggle to call terrorists, terrorists, spell it with an e. Although I notice the FT use the i spelling.
I doubt it's got anything to do with being right on or otherwise. The two spellings are likely just different conventions for transposing the Arabic into English. I don't know Arabic, but you get similar issues with other languages.
Did anyone see Matthew Syed's latest Sunday Times article? I can think of at least one person on PB who might not necessarily approve wholeheartedly of it.
Covid inquiry still going, with no end in sight, such that the lawyers earn fortunes and politicians are long gone when the findings are published, making a mockery of accountability too. This isn’t a leaning exercise; it’s an establishment stitchup"
"Preening lawyers have ensured we learn nothing from inquiries Seeing KCs run rings round public servants who battled Covid is a costly, overrated form of entertainment"
Same as almost every inquiry in history.
As Sir Humphrey famously said,"A basic rule of government is never look into anything you don't have to, and never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be."
I do think the Post Office inquiry is a possible exception. I've enjoyed watching it, and it is making some pretty astounding discoveries about how the organisation has been run over the years. They've been getting through witnesses as quickly as possible, with Sir Wyn Williams frequently telling the lawyers to speed up their questioning, but it's still been going on for 3 years. On the other hand, the Covid inquiry does seem like a waste of time, with nothing significant being learnt that we didn't already know.
Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, reportedly considers cutting ties with Star Wars after Gina Carano’s legal win exposed Kathleen Kennedy’s troubled leadership at Lucasfilm:
I think there was plenty else showing trouble with the property and the leadership of it.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
The whole thing is a dumpster fire made out of dumpster fires. With occasional good bits. Rogue One was actually watchable.
The joined up thinking is beyond modern Holyweird. See the intense fights put up by executives over The Expanse - they hated everything that made it worth watching.
The same with the people over at The Witcher I think, who didn't like the lore or the star, and were presumably happy to do a side series without both.
Comments
Therapeutic interventions in a primary school. Small groups of 4-7. Years 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Absolutely loved it.
Can't wait for tomorrow.
They’re certainly not a group of revolutionary Corbynites.
However I am not at liberty to repeat what any of them said so my newfound rock-solid authority on farming opinion about this issue comes with no evidence or anything of particular use to the debate on PB.
Though I heard one quite good quip when we were talking about excluded assets. “Companies need that £5 million cash balance because one never knows when there might be the next global pandemic or a Labour government”
And from my experience of serious flooding (1953) mud causes as much trouble as the water.
Not that I'm complaining because intervention started early is way cheaper than when children are older and it's a real problem - but I'm surprised the school has the budget..
Oh yes. Because we told her it would happen.
But the attack on farmers and family businesses is driven by ideology and ignorance so I don't expect the supporters of this government to even try to understand or to accept any alternative.
The BBC has discontinued its market data feeds on both the website and red button (UK only) services. We have previously provided delayed updates on major stock prices, currencies, and commodities.
This change is part of our broader initiative to make savings, streamline operations and improve other essential aspects of the BBC’s digital journalism.
This forms part of the BBC’s strategy to deliver value for all of its audiences. We will continue to deliver comprehensive coverage of significant business and economic stories through our TV and radio broadcasts, as well as our news website and other digital platforms.
Although we will no longer supply market data in this format, you can continue to access this information through various alternative sources. BBC News will continue to provide market data headlines on the News Channel and on BBC Radio 4.
I’m old enough to remember seeing Citeh in the third tier at Swindon. Amazing what unlimited cash can do!
In subsections (1) and (2) above "dangerous" refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property.
TIL. I'm prepared for some cries of "two-tier" when this guy gets a stiffer penalty than someone maiming a cyclist.
Ours is but to play games, colour in, talk about friendships and co operatively build Lego...
That and I'm f***ing cheap. Need one of me in every Primary.
Not to mention that the people who look at financial market data include many influential people, all of whom the BBC have now inconvenienced.
How? How the fuck is that "ending delivery" meaning the BBC is deliering value for its audiences that wanted data supplied in this format? Do you really believe that, BBC? No you don't. So stop insulting our intelligence.
And as I've said you are worthwhile at twice the price especially if the intervention is early enough to have an impact...
I bet they spend more on trains/ taxis on one Saturday to get MoTD presenters to Salford than data feed access.
The only growth at the moment seems to be in civil liberty restrictions..🥴🧐
Chris Hayward, policy chairman of the City of London Corporation, said the decision represented a "positive new chapter" for the markets as it "empowers traders to build a sustainable future in premises that align with their long-term business goals".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cje050wz22qo
We are shutting down your place of work = a positive new chapter empowering traders...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/26/groucho-clubs-licence-suspended-while-met-investigates-serious-offence
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr9y0rz15vo
Sounds like a shakedown for more money.
I remember being fascinated as a teenager by share prices on Ceefax. It was an age of less instant gratification.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1861523583597515047
Long term investment and planning in this country would be so much better if pension funds were activist shareholders and driven by their own investors.
https://x.com/mbonvoyassist/status/1861509760782065992
What's the betting some twenty-something asked at a Monday morning meeting "Why are we doing share prices? Isn't that, like, for rich capitalist types? Who else gives a shit?"
And nobody else at that Monday morning meeting could think of a reason to give a shit...not even that it would drive business away from their site.
It is, of course, worth remembering that Marriott won't actually own these hotels.
Who said that my suggestion wouldn’t raise enough money immediately.
They need farms to be sold on death, to get the IHT.
https://www.dni.gov/nctc/groups/hizballah.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGboA3uwoAg
I have no context apart from a link to a dead-end tweet. So can't say.
Yes, let's abolish the Cameronite hasbeens from the Lords.
@TOPPING: you answer your own question - if a person is of the male sex they should not be in a female space - their feminine appearance is irrelevant.
As for the lovely @kyf_100 - I could not care less if you call me a man. When I first joined this forum someone (I will not embarrass them) could not believe it when I revealed I was female because I "argued like a man". Lots of assumptions to unpack there. IRL my confusing name has often led to people thinking I'm a man and calling me one over my life or, sometimes, the imagined male's secretary, when they saw me. Says a lot about them and nothing about me. Where I work now someone keeps using my middle male name. So what. As for misgendering - my position is perfectly clear. People are free to believe in gender if they want. They are also free not to believe in it in the same way that some people believe in "souls" and others do not. But no-one is obliged to use the language of a belief system they do not share. And seeking to enforce this or abuse those who do not comply is the sort of behaviour the Inquisition used to indulge in. It is no more acceptable now.
Night all.
Prosecution says suspects had ties to senior Hamas leaders and established several arms caches that would be available for use in terror attacks against Israeli and Jewish sites
https://www.timesofisrael.com/germany-charges-four-for-setting-up-hamas-weapons-depots-across-europe/
The Lords can't overturn the will of the elected Commons and to be honest if we remove the Bishops too from the Lords I say we should just elect the whole thing and stop it becoming largely a retirement home for ex politicians like the tedious Baroness Morgan
Likewise it would be wrong for the BBC to stop providing sports scores or weather reports that could be found on other websites.
Just as if one of my children wanted me to call them Moonunit, then I would accede to their request, even if a thought it was stupid.
For one, don't move your feet until the brake is on. Even a small step.
Keep two hands on the chainsaw at all times. The hand on the upper grip is there to ensure that if the chainsaw bucks your knuckles will push the brake on so it doesn't hit you in the face.
The rules are relatively simple and obvious but they are not instinctive. Getting people into the habit of always following them so it becomes instinctive takes time.
I'm not even one of those people who goes nuts about the sequels (the biggest issue of which I think was lack of joined up thinking, which caused most of the other problems), but even ignoring the whinier of the fanboys things have not been looking good for a number of years.
Bit like the time that someone claimed the Lt. Col. Oliver North dodged the draft for Vietnam. Well, he kinda did. By voluntarily joining the Marine Corps….
Sadly they are traceable, otherwise I'd flog them.
That makes it hard to use as the basis of a continuing franchise, and they've done amazingly well to mine it as much as they have.
"Matthew Syed
@matthewsyed
Covid inquiry still going, with no end in sight, such that the lawyers earn fortunes and politicians are long gone when the findings are published, making a mockery of accountability too. This isn’t a leaning exercise; it’s an establishment stitchup"
https://x.com/matthewsyed/status/1860602416028070128
https://t.co/u1KkxIrtlh
"Preening lawyers have ensured we learn nothing from inquiries
Seeing KCs run rings round public servants who battled Covid is a costly, overrated form of entertainment"
But because Solo sucked they dropped that approach in favour of overdoing too many TV series at once or in close succession, and like Marvel it was just too much and not enough quality to spread around for that. Add in an aggressive approach to fanboys not enjoying things and not bringing on enough new fans to compensate, and the brand value has to be down.
He should only have done that if adding 'if it is in the right place of course' to show he cares without actually caring.
The joined up thinking is beyond modern Holyweird. See the intense fights put up by executives over The Expanse - they hated everything that made it worth watching.
As Sir Humphrey famously said,"A basic rule of government is never look into anything you don't have to, and never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be."
* It was a strange series, where half the episodes were very dark and dystopian and interesting with the likes of Andy Serkis, mixed with some episodes of very lightweight nonsense.
I maintain of all my suggestions for reform of the Lords, without getting rid of it entirely, the easiest to do anda best would be to simply prevent anyone who has been an MP from serving in the Lords for at least 10 years or two terms (whichever is longer).
Why extend the parliamentary careers of retiring or defeated MPs as a matter of course in many cases? Have the delay and one they have to earn their place with non-parliamentary works, and two the gap will give them perspective rather than retaining their MP attitudes and intensity which is not well suited for the Lords.
And it would eliminate bribing past it old duffers to retire by kicking them upstairs when they have nothing more to contribute. Force parties to deselect those who are past it.