Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Is Trump seeking to enter Gödel’s loophole? – politicalbetting.com

1235789

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    It won’t show your email address or anything like that.

    Just your past comments and the ability to send you a private message.
    Did you really make my profile public, without even telling me?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,405
    Interesting facts from the US election.

    In the states Trump won he received 50,818,192 votes
    In the states he lost 26,483,267

    Harris won 2,700,470 more votes in the states she lost compared to the states she won !
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Here's a test for Labour. Economic Growth versus the Green Fringe de-growth nutters. Will they allow a 3rd runway at Heathrow or not ?

    "Heathrow is in talks with the Government about controversial plans for a third runway and has announced a £2.3billion upgrade.

    Europe’s busiest airport is in fresh discussions with ministers and airlines in its latest push in a long battle to expand.

    Chief executive Thomas Woldbye wants to boost existing infrastructure -while drumming up support for a third runway."


    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/heathrow-launches-fresh-bid-to-build-third-runway-as-it-presses-ahead-with-2-3bn-upgrade/ar-AA1w7fVx?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2accb09b1e754738b0928a30e82e5b7c&ei=17

    I remember studying this case in-depth as part of a previous life.

    It would be much more environmentally friendly to allow the third runway. At the moment we burn jet fuel pointlessly day after day and will forever as planes circle around unable to land.

    The real reason it’s opposed is for silly NIMBY reasons.

    So I would support it and have it built ASAP.
    I remember N.E. Labour MP Cat McKinnell was strongly in favour of it too simply as she believed it would help bring more wealth and opportunities to the regions.

    So there is a regional imperative here too.
    This is another decision that I expect will be opposed by a lot of people but SKS really should just approve it.

    Royal Mail, I am pretty sceptical about that being sold off. But I’m also pretty sceptical about it being privatised in the first place. Another example of privatisation not resulting in a better or more efficient service. Just accept that some things are better run by the state and others not. Thankfully this Labour at least seem pretty pragmatic in that sense.

    Labour’s problem is that politically the big decisions they can make seem to be universally unpopular. I can’t think of any popular big decisions they can make at the moment. Any ideas?
    A third runway is one and doing something positive on Nuclear is another. Maybe HS2 up to Manchester. But, to be honest, big ticket popular stuff is the sort of Boosterism we had from Boris and I think we need to get away from that. They never deliver, it is just a sugar rush at the time of the headline and all falls apart after.

    I think they just need to get back to doing what they need to do in govt and focus on the economy and deliver there. It has been a poor start but not irredeemable if they can get some traction.

    The risks are out there, especially with the US potentially having stickier inflation than expected, but focus on the economy and growth.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    It won’t show your email address or anything like that.

    Just your past comments and the ability to send you a private message.
    Did you really make my profile public, without even telling me?
    I just disabled the option for everybody.

    It makes moderation difficult so it is in the site’s best interests.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,932
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    Yes sorry our posts crossed in the ether.

    But what is the problem with people seeing your older posts? Today it was just for wind up purposes that I checked and commented. I didn't actually care. I was just having fun.

    If you make a post today, how is it any different in a week or a months time other than possibly being embarrassing if out of date or maybe worth boasting about because it was a good tip.

    God I have posted some crap before and made more than a few apologies. I remember once being taken apart on a group of posts I had made by several on here and on the next thread jokingly apologising because an idiot had stolen my computer.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    It won’t show your email address or anything like that.

    Just your past comments and the ability to send you a private message.
    Did you really make my profile public, without even telling me?
    I just disabled the option for everybody.

    It makes moderation difficult so it is in the site’s best interests.
    The allegation is that you specifically did it for me and you said so
  • Apple Intelligence is absolute tripe. Yet again AI is overhyped rubbish.

    What with ChatGPT unable to do basic maths, I really stick by my view that it’s not going to be taking any or many jobs.

    AI imo will take jobs that do not exist. It will mean small firms that cannot afford specialists can have an AI bodge job as better than nothing. We already see (or hear) a lot of AI voiceovers on dodgy social media adverts.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.

    The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.

    There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence

    The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
    Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.

    What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.

    Utterly disgusting behaviour.
    This is an extreme case but it does indicate how misogyny is not the rare perversion one would like to think it is. It's commonplace, taking various forms (some subtle some less so) across all cultures and societies.
    Yes, an extreme case, but it shows that this sort of behaviour once normalised and accepted simply grows and expands sucking in all sorts of men from all walks of life and a cross section of ages.

    It just shows, to me, once again for all we like to think of ourselves as civilised we really are only a short step from barbarism.
    I think her lawyer was right when he said that this case does not show that all men are potential rapists, but it does make it very clear indeed that such men are not at all unusual.
    And the other problem that follows from that is that these not unusual people will make up a not inconsiderate fraction of the jurors who are asked to decide on rape trials in a country like Britain.

    The problem of rape is bigger than the criminal justice system, because it's so big that it undermines the criminal justice system.
    I’m sorry but I have to disagree

    Speaking as one of Britain’s Top Rapists (acquitted) I think the criminal justice system works perfectly well as it is
    Being wrongly accused of rape must be absolutely horrific. The fact that wrongful accusations do happen is justification for the bar of evidence needing to be very high indeed.
    I was clearly injecting a dark joke. I’ve been doing my taxes, nursing a cold AND furiously working on a flint this last week, so haven’t had much time to PB. But when I do peek in here it feels rather flat and worthy


    However, to be serious, yeah it’s not fun. And getting the law right is hard. eg I’m really not sure “stealthing” - removing a condom DURING sex - should count as “rape”. It should be some kind of offence, but it’s simply not “rape”. There was consent
    Consent for one thing (protected sex) does not imply consent for something else (unprotected sex)
    It’s consent to penetration. End of

    As I say, this SHOULD be an offence. It’s
    plainly bad and wrong, but it’s not rape

    And see my other point, we should have
    equal offences for when it happens the
    other way round. “I’m on the pill, honest”

    This happened to a very good friend of
    mine, he became a father without his
    consent, and it has changed his life in ways
    he really didn’t want
    There is no “end of”. That makes it a circular argument: I have defined “rape” as A. This is A. Therefore A is rape.

    The concept of “informed consent” is well established in law and ethics. If you lie about your intention then the counter party does not give legal consent. That makes it rape. Let's take a mythological example: was Uther guilty of rape because he pretended to be Gorlois? Possibly yes… depending on whether you believe Ygraine recognised him or not. But, today, the answer would almost certainly be yes.

    As for your case that is clearly a wrongful act on her part. Proving it would be difficult, but if you can then he shouldn’t be liable for for child support. The challenge with imprisonment for the mother (which might be reasonable) is the negative impact on the innocent child.

    Rape by deception is certainly rape.

    I can remember being startled when I read the unabridged version of The Three Musketeers, ten years ago, to learn that D’Artagnan raped Milady by deception (something omitted from the version I had read at school).
    That plotline never came up in Dogtanian and the three muskehounds I remember watching as a kid.
    To be fair, when I've seen dogs doing it, consent never really seems to come into the equation.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    Yes sorry our posts crossed in the ether.

    But what is the problem with people seeing your older posts? Today it was just for wind up purposes that I checked and commented. I didn't actually care. I was just having fun.

    If you make a post today, how is it any different in a week or a months time other than possibly being embarrassing if out of date or maybe worth boasting about because it was a good tip.

    God I have posted some crap before and made more than a few apologies. I remember once being taken apart on a group of posts I had made by several on here and on the next thread jokingly apologising because an idiot had stolen my computer.
    I have other reasons. Quite important reasons. I can’t discuss them

    If I can’t post privately then it pretty much prevents me commenting
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,632
    Pulpstar said:

    Interesting facts from the US election.

    In the states Trump won he received 50,818,192 votes
    In the states he lost 26,483,267

    Harris won 2,700,470 more votes in the states she lost compared to the states she won !

    That is interesting. What does it imply?

    Also, the vote pretty much removed any EC bias either way. Harris lost the tipping state by about the same as she lost the PV.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,036
    In answer to the question posed in the header: No.

    (Yes, it's an interesting bit of historical trivia.)
  • Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Here's a test for Labour. Economic Growth versus the Green Fringe de-growth nutters. Will they allow a 3rd runway at Heathrow or not ?

    "Heathrow is in talks with the Government about controversial plans for a third runway and has announced a £2.3billion upgrade.

    Europe’s busiest airport is in fresh discussions with ministers and airlines in its latest push in a long battle to expand.

    Chief executive Thomas Woldbye wants to boost existing infrastructure -while drumming up support for a third runway."


    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/heathrow-launches-fresh-bid-to-build-third-runway-as-it-presses-ahead-with-2-3bn-upgrade/ar-AA1w7fVx?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2accb09b1e754738b0928a30e82e5b7c&ei=17

    I remember studying this case in-depth as part of a previous life.

    It would be much more environmentally friendly to allow the third runway. At the moment we burn jet fuel pointlessly day after day and will forever as planes circle around unable to land.

    The real reason it’s opposed is for silly NIMBY reasons.

    So I would support it and have it built ASAP.
    I remember N.E. Labour MP Cat McKinnell was strongly in favour of it too simply as she believed it would help bring more wealth and opportunities to the regions.

    So there is a regional imperative here too.
    This is another decision that I expect will be opposed by a lot of people but SKS really should just approve it.

    Royal Mail, I am pretty sceptical about that being sold off. But I’m also pretty sceptical about it being privatised in the first place. Another example of privatisation not resulting in a better or more efficient service. Just accept that some things are better run by the state and others not. Thankfully this Labour at least seem pretty pragmatic in that sense.

    Labour’s problem is that politically the big decisions they can make seem to be universally unpopular. I can’t think of any popular big decisions they can make at the moment. Any ideas?
    Yes

    Reduce taxes on business, including reducing corporation tax, and let them drive the growth rather than the dead hand of the state
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,932
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    Yes sorry our posts crossed in the ether.

    But what is the problem with people seeing your older posts? Today it was just for wind up purposes that I checked and commented. I didn't actually care. I was just having fun.

    If you make a post today, how is it any different in a week or a months time other than possibly being embarrassing if out of date or maybe worth boasting about because it was a good tip.

    God I have posted some crap before and made more than a few apologies. I remember once being taken apart on a group of posts I had made by several on here and on the next thread jokingly apologising because an idiot had stolen my computer.
    I have other reasons. Quite important reasons. I can’t discuss them

    If I can’t post privately then it pretty much prevents me commenting
    OK I accept you have reasons that you can't say, but your posts aren't private anyway. They never have been. The private message facility is also very useful. I have used it a lot to have private conversation with many people which either aren't appropriate to have here (because they are private) or more likely I would bore the pants off of people having a one to one in public.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.

    The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.

    There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence

    The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
    Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.

    What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.

    Utterly disgusting behaviour.
    There is much one could say about this case, much of which has probably already been said here and elsewhere, but I would just add one slant from Mrs PtP who lived many years in France, some of them not far from Avignon. She thought there was a definite French angle to this. She was alluding particularly to attitudes towards women, proprietal attitudes of some men, the narrow provincial milieu. These added to the toxicity of the brew. She is by no means an Anglophile, but she did think this kind of thing less likely in this country. (We have other failings which will be passed over for the moment.)

    For myself I would also add that a former gf once turned up late at my flat so intoxicated as to be in a comparable state to the unfortunate French lady. If I had raped her, she wouldn't have known. That I did not says nothing about my scruples. It was a completely unsexy situation. It would have been like fucking a corpse, or blow-up doll. It would also have been rape, without question. Non-consensual sex always is.

    The men who did this too her deserve no sympathy. Not all men are like that, but too many are, and it's good that fewer will now be unaware of the likely consequences.
    I've never found the "too inebriated to consent" look a particularly attractive one in a sexual partner. I prefer my partner to be at least vaguely engaged. (Just a simple "hurry up will you, we've got to pick the kids up at 3" is enough.)
    I'm sure that ought to be 3pm, not 3" ...?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330
    edited December 19
    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    ... (just realised an earlier answer does the needful, sorry)
  • PJH said:

    ydoethur said:

    Tulip Siddiq is surely toast. If she were in a less sensitive department she might ride this out but Caesar’s wife surely applies here. You can’t have the minister charged with rooting out corruption plausibly accused of large-scale corruption.

    I'm surprised she was even appointed - or indeed allowed to be on the candidates' list. It is hardly a secret that she is part of an extremely corrupt family. While I would not accept responsibility for my brother's sins, I'm not a politician and short of her renouncing her family totally, if it had been my decision I would have kept her firmly on the rearmost of the back benches.
    Tulip Siddiq being in government provides more evidence that Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician. After Boris and Rishi (but mainly Boris) Honest Keir Starmer was supposed to be the upright, reliable, adult in the room, but now this is undermined by freebiegate, Tulipgate, Waspigate and coming soon, croneys-in-ermingate.
    I still think freebiegate was just very badly communicated as opposed to actually showing corruption. None has come out, still.

    Waspigate, I mean it was a stupid idea and they’ve shut it down?
    Waspigate is like tuition fees for Nick Clegg. You can't campaign one way and legislate the other without looking bad. The merits of the issue don't matter. Integrity does.

    Likewise freebies. It is all within the rules so Starmer's inner lawyer says it's OK but again it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    Apple Intelligence is absolute tripe. Yet again AI is overhyped rubbish.

    What with ChatGPT unable to do basic maths, I really stick by my view that it’s not going to be taking any or many jobs.

    AI imo will take jobs that do not exist. It will mean small firms that cannot afford specialists can have an AI bodge job as better than nothing. We already see (or hear) a lot of AI voiceovers on dodgy social media adverts.
    AI will make my posting of incorrect and asinine comments much more efficient by delegating the creation part to it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    It won’t show your email address or anything like that.

    Just your past comments and the ability to send you a private message.
    That misconception possibly explains a number of posters who are oddly shy about their past comments.
  • Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
  • PJH said:

    ydoethur said:

    Tulip Siddiq is surely toast. If she were in a less sensitive department she might ride this out but Caesar’s wife surely applies here. You can’t have the minister charged with rooting out corruption plausibly accused of large-scale corruption.

    I'm surprised she was even appointed - or indeed allowed to be on the candidates' list. It is hardly a secret that she is part of an extremely corrupt family. While I would not accept responsibility for my brother's sins, I'm not a politician and short of her renouncing her family totally, if it had been my decision I would have kept her firmly on the rearmost of the back benches.
    Tulip Siddiq being in government provides more evidence that Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician. After Boris and Rishi (but mainly Boris) Honest Keir Starmer was supposed to be the upright, reliable, adult in the room, but now this is undermined by freebiegate, Tulipgate, Waspigate and coming soon, croneys-in-ermingate.
    I still think freebiegate was just very badly communicated as opposed to actually showing corruption. None has come out, still.

    Waspigate, I mean it was a stupid idea and they’ve shut it down?
    It was the correct decision, but can you not see the utter hypocrisy of over 70 Labour mps actively campaigning with, and for the WASPI women, and embarrassingly of all, Starmer, Reeves, Kendall, Rayner, Nandy, and Streeting at the forefront of the campaign
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,161
    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    Yes, but I really don't think many people are that partisan. Even on here, I'd say partisan types will be in a minority.
    Half a dozen or so?

    But partisans are needed. In life and on here. It's all too easy being detached and objective. Anyone can do that.
    Absolutely and for every right wing partisan there is a Shecorns88 to balance it.

    Sadly since Labour took office a few people have taken any criticism of them very badly. One even had a hissy fit and left, but then came back numerous times just to make the same point repeatedly. More comebacks than Frank Sinatra but at least when Ol Blue Eyes made a comeback he was greeted with joy.
    Has the government made mistakes? Yes.

    Is the government done things that I am opposed to? Yes.

    Are they the worst government in the history of the country, and we are all doomed? No.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    rcs1000 said:

    I find it staggering that both Musk and the official Twitter account for the Department for Government Efficiency claimed that Congressmen were voting themselves a 40% payrise rather than a 3.8% one..
    I don't.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    It won’t show your email address or anything like that.

    Just your past comments and the ability to send you a private message.
    That misconception possibly explains a number of posters who are oddly shy about their past comments.
    I half wrote a site scraper to copy all the comments available into a database dimensioned by topic, user and various keywords. Then I thought that OGH might not approve.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    I managed to work that out all on my own, meagre IQ notwithstanding.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,161

    a

    Taz said:

    Here's a test for Labour. Economic Growth versus the Green Fringe de-growth nutters. Will they allow a 3rd runway at Heathrow or not ?

    "Heathrow is in talks with the Government about controversial plans for a third runway and has announced a £2.3billion upgrade.

    Europe’s busiest airport is in fresh discussions with ministers and airlines in its latest push in a long battle to expand.

    Chief executive Thomas Woldbye wants to boost existing infrastructure -while drumming up support for a third runway."


    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/heathrow-launches-fresh-bid-to-build-third-runway-as-it-presses-ahead-with-2-3bn-upgrade/ar-AA1w7fVx?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2accb09b1e754738b0928a30e82e5b7c&ei=17

    Move Heathrow to the seaside. Use the concrete gravity structure the Norwegians perfected to build it in massive sections (500,000 tons each). 6 runaways,

    Heathrow becomes a town - un-cursed vast areas of land for homes. Transport, power, sewerage all existing.

    Just fucking do it.
    High speed trains to Amsterdam Schiphol. Close Heathrow. Sorted.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    It won’t show your email address or anything like that.

    Just your past comments and the ability to send you a private message.
    That misconception possibly explains a number of posters who are oddly shy about their past comments.
    I half wrote a site scraper to copy all the comments available into a database dimensioned by topic, user and various keywords. Then I thought that OGH might not approve.
    There is a Vanilla API that allows you to pull comments.

    I am sorely tempted to write a little web page that allows you to search for poster "HYUFD", date range 2015 to 2019, text "boris johnson greatest"... that kind of thing.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    N
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    It won’t show your email address or anything like that.

    Just your past comments and the ability to send you a private message.
    That misconception possibly explains a number of posters who are oddly shy about their past comments.
    I’ll await the Edict of Mods - and then decide
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330
    edited December 19
    Specially for @HYUFD:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24807978.poll-yes-support-59-per-cent-scotland-becomes-republic/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=191224

    "INDEPENDENCE support would rise to 59% from 54% if it meant Scotland would be a republic, a new poll shows."

    (Which actually surprises me a bit. But maybe the Commonwealth is showing the way here. Jamaica and so on.)

    (Excluding DKs.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    Unless you choose to make it so.

    Mine is there, but to be fair, it's one I only use for a few things anyway (and never for professional purposes).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    edited December 19
    Leon said:

    N

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    It won’t show your email address or anything like that.

    Just your past comments and the ability to send you a private message.
    That misconception possibly explains a number of posters who are oddly shy about their past comments.
    I’ll await the Edict of Mods - and then decide
    Are you really objecting to your past comments (since 2020) - and nothing else - being visible ?

    That's all that's being discussed.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    Ummm:

    Past comments are searchable for all posters today if you know how to use Google properly.

    I'm not going to tell people how to do it, but it's not particularly complex.
  • Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    I managed to work that out all on my own, meagre IQ notwithstanding.
    I know, it’s quite funny.

    The reality is that with the new Online Safety Bill there’s no privacy available on the interweb.

    The problem will be for people who post dodgy stuff and the sites therein.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    Ok. Back to the fucking taxes. Patriot that I am. Later….
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330

    a

    Taz said:

    Here's a test for Labour. Economic Growth versus the Green Fringe de-growth nutters. Will they allow a 3rd runway at Heathrow or not ?

    "Heathrow is in talks with the Government about controversial plans for a third runway and has announced a £2.3billion upgrade.

    Europe’s busiest airport is in fresh discussions with ministers and airlines in its latest push in a long battle to expand.

    Chief executive Thomas Woldbye wants to boost existing infrastructure -while drumming up support for a third runway."


    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/heathrow-launches-fresh-bid-to-build-third-runway-as-it-presses-ahead-with-2-3bn-upgrade/ar-AA1w7fVx?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2accb09b1e754738b0928a30e82e5b7c&ei=17

    Move Heathrow to the seaside. Use the concrete gravity structure the Norwegians perfected to build it in massive sections (500,000 tons each). 6 runaways,

    Heathrow becomes a town - un-cursed vast areas of land for homes. Transport, power, sewerage all existing.

    Just fucking do it.
    High speed trains to Amsterdam Schiphol. Close Heathrow. Sorted.
    *Without* going through London, still less walking along **** Euston Road. Please.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    Leon said:

    Ok. Back to the fucking taxes. Patriot that I am. Later….

    Gosh, have they put VAT on *that* too?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    Unless you choose to make it so.

    Mine is there, but to be fair, it's one I only use for a few things anyway (and never for professional purposes).
    Hang on - we had you marked as a professional smarty-pants and clowner-around. And now you tell us it was all unprofessional!? Does PB have a compensation scheme?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,609
    edited December 19
    Carnyx said:

    Specially for @HYUFD:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24807978.poll-yes-support-59-per-cent-scotland-becomes-republic/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=191224

    "INDEPENDENCE support would rise to 59% from 54% if it meant Scotland would be a republic, a new poll shows."

    (Which actually surprises me a bit. But maybe the Commonwealth is showing the way here. Jamaica and so on.)

    (Excluding DKs.)

    I suspect that is a judgement on just how poor Labour have been to date

    Hasn't Sarwar repeated his support for WASPI women contrary to Starmer decision
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,932
    edited December 19
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    It won’t show your email address or anything like that.

    Just your past comments and the ability to send you a private message.
    That misconception possibly explains a number of posters who are oddly shy about their past comments.
    I remember when it was discussed before a number of people were completely unaware they were private.

    For those concerned about going public nothing confidential can be seen. It is only your past posts, your like history and the ability to have a private discussion with other posters that is available. All really good stuff. The off line discussion is really useful. I was able to help @Cyclefree with something and @NickPalmer and @Andy_Cooke both helped me and I have had numerous chats with numerous other people and weirdly I can see one of those was a chat with @leon about France and he was very helpful.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    PJH said:

    a

    Taz said:

    Here's a test for Labour. Economic Growth versus the Green Fringe de-growth nutters. Will they allow a 3rd runway at Heathrow or not ?

    "Heathrow is in talks with the Government about controversial plans for a third runway and has announced a £2.3billion upgrade.

    Europe’s busiest airport is in fresh discussions with ministers and airlines in its latest push in a long battle to expand.

    Chief executive Thomas Woldbye wants to boost existing infrastructure -while drumming up support for a third runway."


    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/heathrow-launches-fresh-bid-to-build-third-runway-as-it-presses-ahead-with-2-3bn-upgrade/ar-AA1w7fVx?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2accb09b1e754738b0928a30e82e5b7c&ei=17

    Move Heathrow to the seaside. Use the concrete gravity structure the Norwegians perfected to build it in massive sections (500,000 tons each). 6 runaways,

    Heathrow becomes a town - un-cursed vast areas of land for homes. Transport, power, sewerage all existing.

    Just fucking do it.
    I would support that. I think Heathrow is in the wrong place in relation to London and should just be closed. (Extra runways at Gatwick/Stansted to compensate if need be).

    Actually I think all intercontinental flights should be based at a new 4-runway airport in the Midlands, as being more appropriately central to the UK, ideally Birmingham airport. That would remove the need for the busy SE to accommodate everyone arriving regardless of where in the UK they want to go. This would hardly inconvenience Londoners either, in fact until the Lizzie Line opened I could get to Birmingham Airport more quickly from where I live in east London than to Heathrow.
    You'd just up with a tenfold-bigger Staines.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330

    Carnyx said:

    Specially for @HYUFD:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24807978.poll-yes-support-59-per-cent-scotland-becomes-republic/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=191224

    "INDEPENDENCE support would rise to 59% from 54% if it meant Scotland would be a republic, a new poll shows."

    (Which actually surprises me a bit. But maybe the Commonwealth is showing the way here. Jamaica and so on.)

    (Excluding DKs.)

    I suspect that is a judgement on just how poor Labour have been to date
    Mm. Doesn't explain the republicanism bit, though. Something else going on. I'm not sure if it's to do with age or something of the sort.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    Unless you choose to make it so.

    Mine is there, but to be fair, it's one I only use for a few things anyway (and never for professional purposes).
    Hang on - we had you marked as a professional smarty-pants and clowner-around. And now you tell us it was all unprofessional!? Does PB have a compensation scheme?
    At those, I'm a through amateur.
  • Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    It won’t show your email address or anything like that.

    Just your past comments and the ability to send you a private message.
    That misconception possibly explains a number of posters who are oddly shy about their past comments.
    I half wrote a site scraper to copy all the comments available into a database dimensioned by topic, user and various keywords. Then I thought that OGH might not approve.
    I'd imagine various political parties and others have done so already.
  • Carnyx said:

    Specially for @HYUFD:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24807978.poll-yes-support-59-per-cent-scotland-becomes-republic/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=191224

    "INDEPENDENCE support would rise to 59% from 54% if it meant Scotland would be a republic, a new poll shows."

    (Which actually surprises me a bit. But maybe the Commonwealth is showing the way here. Jamaica and so on.)

    (Excluding DKs.)

    That’s the morning thread sorted.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,405
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Interesting facts from the US election.

    In the states Trump won he received 50,818,192 votes
    In the states he lost 26,483,267

    Harris won 2,700,470 more votes in the states she lost compared to the states she won !

    That is interesting. What does it imply?

    Also, the vote pretty much removed any EC bias either way. Harris lost the tipping state by about the same as she lost the PV.
    0.23% bias toward Trump in the end, tipping state PA.

    Every state on wikipedia now has the correct Harris/Trump total in the top right box btw.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894
    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    Unless you choose to make it so.

    Mine is there, but to be fair, it's one I only use for a few things anyway (and never for professional purposes).
    Hang on - we had you marked as a professional smarty-pants and clowner-around. And now you tell us it was all unprofessional!? Does PB have a compensation scheme?
    At those, I'm a through amateur.
    It's not about delivery, but about expectation! Will you argue in court that it was clear from your level of posts that you were a base amateur !? .... :)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,161
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    There's nothing to stop any random visitor to PB copying and pasting every one of your posts into a file that they keep for the next 50 years, searching for every mention of AI, UAP or whatever, to post back up whenever they feel like it.

    The only way to prevent this is to either stop posting entirely, or create a new account with a completely different writing style (and no mentions of trips to the same locations as Sean Thomas) so that none of us realise it is you.
  • kenObikenObi Posts: 211

    Carnyx said:

    Specially for @HYUFD:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24807978.poll-yes-support-59-per-cent-scotland-becomes-republic/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=191224

    "INDEPENDENCE support would rise to 59% from 54% if it meant Scotland would be a republic, a new poll shows."

    (Which actually surprises me a bit. But maybe the Commonwealth is showing the way here. Jamaica and so on.)

    (Excluding DKs.)

    I suspect that is a judgement on just how poor Labour have been to date

    Hasn't Sarwar repeated his support for WASPI women contrary to Starmer decision
    What ?

    It goes up by 5% if Scotland would be a republic ?

    I'd be more worried about the monachys unpopularity than Labour.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    I managed to work that out all on my own, meagre IQ notwithstanding.
    I know, it’s quite funny.

    The reality is that with the new Online Safety Bill there’s no privacy available on the interweb.

    The problem will be for people who post dodgy stuff and the sites therein.
    TBF to Leon, I can well understand his reluctance to be identifiable IRL via the site - but that's not what we're discussing at all, and is not what has happened.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    I have to say that I can't get all that exercised about Trump doing away with jus solis, we did it over 40 years ago and it made sense then as it does now. It's just going to be difficult to get 60 senators to say yes to it and if he does it by EO then the next president can just undo it.

    Jus solis is an antiquated idea that never took into account the ease at which people can travel for citizenship tourism when the idea was thought up.

    You’re not concerned by a President taking away the citizenship of individuals by overturning the constitution ? It’s not a decision that is his to make.

    This isn’t an abstract argument about the merits or otherwise of US citizenship laws. It’s about whether as president can take away constitutional rights without any check.

    If he were to do it by the legal process for constitutional amendment, then plenty of people would be unhappy about it, but it wouldn’t undermine the basis of democracy in the US. But the chances of his succeeding in that are slim to none.
    Successfully doing so by executive order - which is blatantly unconstitutional - would put democracy at risk. If successful, it would effectively mean no limits at all on
    presidential power.
    Although the birthright clause has TWO conditions. People tend to forget the second (although David mentioned it in passing) - “and are subject to US jurisdiction”

    Could he make a case that the parents are illegal aliens. Therefore they are not subject to US jurisdiction - and have no protections as a result - but are simply automatically expelled (without die process) if apprehended. He can then further argue that the children of such individuals are not citizens

    Although arguing that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction opens up a can of worms around (say) taxation.
    And it would legitimise Musk’s scofflaw approach
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,433
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    Aw diddums.

    Simply don't say anything that will get you in trouble - like the rest of us have to do. Basically, don't be an asshat.

    Ah, yes I see your problem... ;)
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443
    rcs1000 said:

    I find it staggering that both Musk and the official Twitter account for the Department for Government Efficiency claimed that Congressmen were voting themselves a 40% payrise rather than a 3.8% one.

    It is also bears noting that this would be the first payrise for members of Congress since the financial crisis in 2009.
    But think about the ink that DOGE would save if they eliminated the period
  • I have received the St John Christmas crossword.

    Can AI solve crosswords if fed the whole thing in one go, including the grid?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443
    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    For infallibility to be legitimate you need to be seated on your throne
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    I managed to work that out all on my own, meagre IQ notwithstanding.
    I know, it’s quite funny.

    The reality is that with the new Online Safety Bill there’s no privacy available on the interweb.

    The problem will be for people who post dodgy stuff and the sites therein.
    TBF to Leon, I can well understand his reluctance to be identifiable IRL via the site - but that's not what we're discussing at all, and is not what has happened.
    Indeed, not really clear on what the difference is.
  • Man who helped design breathalysers is banned for drink-driving
    Dr Richard Lacey, 70, said he had misjudged how much he had drunk during lunch after crashing on a roundabout near Talgarth, Powys

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w (£££)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    I
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    I managed to work that out all on my own, meagre IQ notwithstanding.
    I know, it’s quite funny.

    The reality is that with the new Online Safety Bill there’s no privacy available on the interweb.

    The problem will be for people who post dodgy stuff and the sites therein.
    TBF to Leon, I can well understand his reluctance to be identifiable IRL via the site - but that's not what we're discussing at all, and is not what has happened.
    Indeed, not really clear on what the difference is.
    In fairness though im currently awaiting an x-ray after being knocked off my bike, so im not as with it as usual.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    For infallibility to be legitimate you need to be seated on your throne
    Papal throne for preference.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894
    Baffling that Leon should be the one who worries about being identified.

    We all know he's Sean Trellis, works for the Oldie, lives in Camden above a disused sex-shop. 47e Artillery Terrace. If he's not at home then his local is the Edinboro Castle. And his barber is the one with the newly acquired Ferrari.
  • PC crashed. Market crashed (or at least the bit my pension is in seems to have done). And I just missed a 999/1 winner. Not my day.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,433
    kle4 said:

    I

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    I managed to work that out all on my own, meagre IQ notwithstanding.
    I know, it’s quite funny.

    The reality is that with the new Online Safety Bill there’s no privacy available on the interweb.

    The problem will be for people who post dodgy stuff and the sites therein.
    TBF to Leon, I can well understand his reluctance to be identifiable IRL via the site - but that's not what we're discussing at all, and is not what has happened.
    Indeed, not really clear on what the difference is.
    In fairness though im currently awaiting an x-ray after being knocked off my bike, so im not as with it as usual.
    Ouch. Hope you're okay, and you're seen quickly.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,632
    kle4 said:

    I

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    I managed to work that out all on my own, meagre IQ notwithstanding.
    I know, it’s quite funny.

    The reality is that with the new Online Safety Bill there’s no privacy available on the interweb.

    The problem will be for people who post dodgy stuff and the sites therein.
    TBF to Leon, I can well understand his reluctance to be identifiable IRL via the site - but that's not what we're discussing at all, and is not what has happened.
    Indeed, not really clear on what the difference is.
    In fairness though im currently awaiting an x-ray after being knocked off my bike, so im not as with it as usual.
    Oh. I hope all turns out ok with that.
  • kenObikenObi Posts: 211

    PJH said:

    ydoethur said:

    Tulip Siddiq is surely toast. If she were in a less sensitive department she might ride this out but Caesar’s wife surely applies here. You can’t have the minister charged with rooting out corruption plausibly accused of large-scale corruption.

    I'm surprised she was even appointed - or indeed allowed to be on the candidates' list. It is hardly a secret that she is part of an extremely corrupt family. While I would not accept responsibility for my brother's sins, I'm not a politician and short of her renouncing her family totally, if it had been my decision I would have kept her firmly on the rearmost of the back benches.
    Tulip Siddiq being in government provides more evidence that Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician. After Boris and Rishi (but mainly Boris) Honest Keir Starmer was supposed to be the upright, reliable, adult in the room, but now this is undermined by freebiegate, Tulipgate, Waspigate and coming soon, croneys-in-ermingate.
    I still think freebiegate was just very badly communicated as opposed to actually showing corruption. None has come out, still.

    Waspigate, I mean it was a stupid idea and they’ve shut it down?
    Waspigate is like tuition fees for Nick Clegg. You can't campaign one way and legislate the other without looking bad. The merits of the issue don't matter. Integrity does.

    Likewise freebies. It is all within the rules so Starmer's inner lawyer says it's OK but again it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
    The difference is Clegg put scrapping university tuition fees in their manifesto.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    I

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    I managed to work that out all on my own, meagre IQ notwithstanding.
    I know, it’s quite funny.

    The reality is that with the new Online Safety Bill there’s no privacy available on the interweb.

    The problem will be for people who post dodgy stuff and the sites therein.
    TBF to Leon, I can well understand his reluctance to be identifiable IRL via the site - but that's not what we're discussing at all, and is not what has happened.
    Indeed, not really clear on what the difference is.
    In fairness though im currently awaiting an x-ray after being knocked off my bike, so im not as with it as usual.
    Oh. I hope all turns out ok with that.
    Currently stiff and awkward. And also theres the back.

    Very surreal experience, been a long time since any medical woes.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,394
    edited December 19
    kenObi said:

    PJH said:

    ydoethur said:

    Tulip Siddiq is surely toast. If she were in a less sensitive department she might ride this out but Caesar’s wife surely applies here. You can’t have the minister charged with rooting out corruption plausibly accused of large-scale corruption.

    I'm surprised she was even appointed - or indeed allowed to be on the candidates' list. It is hardly a secret that she is part of an extremely corrupt family. While I would not accept responsibility for my brother's sins, I'm not a politician and short of her renouncing her family totally, if it had been my decision I would have kept her firmly on the rearmost of the back benches.
    Tulip Siddiq being in government provides more evidence that Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician. After Boris and Rishi (but mainly Boris) Honest Keir Starmer was supposed to be the upright, reliable, adult in the room, but now this is undermined by freebiegate, Tulipgate, Waspigate and coming soon, croneys-in-ermingate.
    I still think freebiegate was just very badly communicated as opposed to actually showing corruption. None has come out, still.

    Waspigate, I mean it was a stupid idea and they’ve shut it down?
    Waspigate is like tuition fees for Nick Clegg. You can't campaign one way and legislate the other without looking bad. The merits of the issue don't matter. Integrity does.

    Likewise freebies. It is all within the rules so Starmer's inner lawyer says it's OK but again it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
    The difference is Clegg put scrapping university tuition fees in their manifesto.
    And the difference matters because...? These things are decided by the public, not a judicial inquiry.
  • kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    I

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    I managed to work that out all on my own, meagre IQ notwithstanding.
    I know, it’s quite funny.

    The reality is that with the new Online Safety Bill there’s no privacy available on the interweb.

    The problem will be for people who post dodgy stuff and the sites therein.
    TBF to Leon, I can well understand his reluctance to be identifiable IRL via the site - but that's not what we're discussing at all, and is not what has happened.
    Indeed, not really clear on what the difference is.
    In fairness though im currently awaiting an x-ray after being knocked off my bike, so im not as with it as usual.
    Oh. I hope all turns out ok with that.
    Currently stiff and awkward. And also theres the back.

    Very surreal experience, been a long time since any medical woes.
    Take notes and write a header on the state of the NHS. You can email it to TSE from your trolley in the corridor any time before Christmas. He's got the crossword for that day.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330

    Man who helped design breathalysers is banned for drink-driving
    Dr Richard Lacey, 70, said he had misjudged how much he had drunk during lunch after crashing on a roundabout near Talgarth, Powys

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w (£££)

    If he's 70 he must have been very precocious?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,877
    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.

    The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.

    There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence

    The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
    Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.

    What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.

    Utterly disgusting behaviour.
    This is an extreme case but it does indicate how misogyny is not the rare perversion one would like to think it is. It's commonplace, taking various forms (some subtle some less so) across all cultures and societies.
    Yes, an extreme case, but it shows that this sort of behaviour once normalised and accepted simply grows and expands sucking in all sorts of men from all walks of life and a cross section of ages.

    It just shows, to me, once again for all we like to think of ourselves as civilised we really are only a short step from barbarism.
    I think her lawyer was right when he said that this case does not show that all men are potential rapists, but it does make it very clear indeed that such men are not at all unusual.
    And the other problem that follows from that is that these not unusual people will make up a not inconsiderate fraction of the jurors who are asked to decide on rape trials in a country like Britain.

    The problem of rape is bigger than the criminal justice system, because it's so big that it undermines the criminal justice system.
    I’m sorry but I have to disagree

    Speaking as one of Britain’s Top Rapists (acquitted) I think the criminal justice system works perfectly well as it is
    Being wrongly accused of rape must be absolutely horrific. The fact that wrongful accusations do happen is justification for the bar of evidence needing to be very high indeed.
    I was clearly injecting a dark joke. I’ve been doing my taxes, nursing a cold AND furiously working on a flint this last week, so haven’t had much time to PB. But when I do peek in here it feels rather flat and worthy


    However, to be serious, yeah it’s not fun. And getting the law right is hard. eg I’m really not sure “stealthing” - removing a condom DURING sex - should count as “rape”. It should be some kind of offence, but it’s simply not “rape”. There was consent
    Consent for one thing (protected sex) does not imply consent for something else (unprotected sex)
    It’s consent to penetration. End of

    As I say, this SHOULD be an offence. It’s
    plainly bad and wrong, but it’s not rape

    And see my other point, we should have
    equal offences for when it happens the
    other way round. “I’m on the pill, honest”

    This happened to a very good friend of
    mine, he became a father without his
    consent, and it has changed his life in ways
    he really didn’t want
    There is no “end of”. That makes it a circular argument: I have defined “rape” as A. This is A. Therefore A is rape.

    The concept of “informed consent” is well established in law and ethics. If you lie about your intention then the counter party does not give legal consent. That makes it rape. Let's take a mythological example: was Uther guilty of rape because he pretended to be Gorlois? Possibly yes… depending on whether you believe Ygraine recognised him or not. But, today, the answer would almost certainly be yes.

    As for your case that is clearly a wrongful act on her part. Proving it would be difficult, but if you can then he shouldn’t be liable for for child support. The challenge with imprisonment for the mother (which might be reasonable) is the negative impact on the innocent child.

    Rape by deception is certainly rape.

    I can remember being startled when I read the unabridged version of The Three Musketeers, ten years ago, to learn that D’Artagnan raped Milady by deception (something omitted from the version I had read at school).
    That plotline never came up in Dogtanian and the three muskehounds I remember watching as a kid.
    Are we headed for a new nickname for Elon the Musketeer, here?

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330

    Carnyx said:

    Specially for @HYUFD:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24807978.poll-yes-support-59-per-cent-scotland-becomes-republic/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=191224

    "INDEPENDENCE support would rise to 59% from 54% if it meant Scotland would be a republic, a new poll shows."

    (Which actually surprises me a bit. But maybe the Commonwealth is showing the way here. Jamaica and so on.)

    (Excluding DKs.)

    I suspect that is a judgement on just how poor Labour have been to date

    Hasn't Sarwar repeated his support for WASPI women contrary to Starmer decision
    Sorry: I missed your addendum. Yes, indeed.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24805190.anas-sarwar-breaks-silence-labour-reject-waspi-compensation-claims/

    to go with

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24801201.snp-pay-waspi-compensation-wont-labour-minister-says/ (you'd think a Westminster minister for pensions would know very well that pensions are ultra vires for the devolved administrations, so one interpretation - perhaps unfairly of me - is that Ms Kendall thinks Scots will believe any old thing).
  • Omnium said:

    Baffling that Leon should be the one who worries about being identified.

    We all know he's Sean Trellis, works for the Oldie, lives in Camden above a disused sex-shop. 47e Artillery Terrace. If he's not at home then his local is the Edinboro Castle. And his barber is the one with the newly acquired Ferrari.

    To be fair to Leon, the fear of having one's reputation (or career in local politics) ruined by a determined campaigner digging through old posts is not entirely unjustified. Imagine if Leon is up for Flintknapper of the Year and a rival digs up his holiday snaps showing more half-empty glasses than faux phalluses: instant disqualification! And jigsaw identification of other pseudonymous posters might easily be possible.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,053

    Carnyx said:

    Specially for @HYUFD:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/24807978.poll-yes-support-59-per-cent-scotland-becomes-republic/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=191224

    "INDEPENDENCE support would rise to 59% from 54% if it meant Scotland would be a republic, a new poll shows."

    (Which actually surprises me a bit. But maybe the Commonwealth is showing the way here. Jamaica and so on.)

    (Excluding DKs.)

    I suspect that is a judgement on just how poor Labour have been to date

    Hasn't Sarwar repeated his support for WASPI women contrary to Starmer decision
    Sarwar isn’t interested in WASPI women. Sarwar is only interested in Sarwar.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    I managed to work that out all on my own, meagre IQ notwithstanding.
    I know, it’s quite funny.

    The reality is that with the new Online Safety Bill there’s no privacy available on the interweb.

    The problem will be for people who post dodgy stuff and the sites therein.
    TBF to Leon, I can well understand his reluctance to be identifiable IRL via the site - but that's not what we're discussing at all, and is not what has happened.
    Indeed, not really clear on what the difference is.
    If you set your account to be private, before this afternoon it hid access to your past comments.
    You still keep all your identity details, email address etc hidden when you remove the privacy setting - unless you separately, and explicitly choose to make them public.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    Carnyx said:

    Man who helped design breathalysers is banned for drink-driving
    Dr Richard Lacey, 70, said he had misjudged how much he had drunk during lunch after crashing on a roundabout near Talgarth, Powys

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w (£££)

    If he's 70 he must have been very precocious?
    He might not have invented the original one, but merely been involved with the manufacturing design of a specific model.

    As an aside, you can buy breathalyzers on Amazon.

    I have one.

    I am staggered by how drunk I am before I pass the 0.08% level. There's no way I would go anywhere near a car even at the 0.06% or 0.04% levels.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,521
    Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Guilty verdicts so far for those men who raped and drugged Gisele Pelicot.

    The courage of that woman is something else. The men who did this to her are scum.

    There is no word that can adequately describe the depravity of these men nor prison sentence

    The courage of Gisele Pelicot is amazing and if nothing else, the world wide publicity she has achieved hopefully may have an effect and all men should utterly condemn this unspeakable abuse of a woman
    Absolutely. This is not a case where "It's not all men" will wash. That is just attemtping mitigation. This needs to be condemned strongly by everyone.

    What struck me was the rapists were just ordinary people with ordinary lives in the town. This could happen anywhere and behaviour like that normalised becoming accepted.

    Utterly disgusting behaviour.
    This is an extreme case but it does indicate how misogyny is not the rare perversion one would like to think it is. It's commonplace, taking various forms (some subtle some less so) across all cultures and societies.
    Yes, an extreme case, but it shows that this sort of behaviour once normalised and accepted simply grows and expands sucking in all sorts of men from all walks of life and a cross section of ages.

    It just shows, to me, once again for all we like to think of ourselves as civilised we really are only a short step from barbarism.
    I think her lawyer was right when he said that this case does not show that all men are potential rapists, but it does make it very clear indeed that such men are not at all unusual.
    And the other problem that follows from that is that these not unusual people will make up a not inconsiderate fraction of the jurors who are asked to decide on rape trials in a country like Britain.

    The problem of rape is bigger than the criminal justice system, because it's so big that it undermines the criminal justice system.
    I’m sorry but I have to disagree

    Speaking as one of Britain’s Top Rapists (acquitted) I think the criminal justice system works perfectly well as it is
    Being wrongly accused of rape must be absolutely horrific. The fact that wrongful accusations do happen is justification for the bar of evidence needing to be very high indeed.
    I was clearly injecting a dark joke. I’ve been doing my taxes, nursing a cold AND furiously working on a flint this last week, so haven’t had much time to PB. But when I do peek in here it feels rather flat and worthy


    However, to be serious, yeah it’s not fun. And getting the law right is hard. eg I’m really not sure “stealthing” - removing a condom DURING sex - should count as “rape”. It should be some kind of offence, but it’s simply not “rape”. There was consent
    Consent for one thing (protected sex) does not imply consent for something else (unprotected sex)
    It’s consent to penetration. End of

    As I say, this SHOULD be an offence. It’s
    plainly bad and wrong, but it’s not rape

    And see my other point, we should have
    equal offences for when it happens the
    other way round. “I’m on the pill, honest”

    This happened to a very good friend of
    mine, he became a father without his
    consent, and it has changed his life in ways
    he really didn’t want
    There is no “end of”. That makes it a circular argument: I have defined “rape” as A. This is A. Therefore A is rape.

    The concept of “informed consent” is well established in law and ethics. If you lie about your intention then the counter party does not give legal consent. That makes it rape. Let's take a mythological example: was Uther guilty of rape because he pretended to be Gorlois? Possibly yes… depending on whether you believe Ygraine recognised him or not. But, today, the answer would almost certainly be yes.

    As for your case that is clearly a wrongful act on her part. Proving it would be difficult, but if you can then he shouldn’t be liable for for child support. The challenge with imprisonment for the mother (which might be reasonable) is the negative impact on the innocent child.

    Rape by deception is certainly rape.

    I can remember being startled when I read the unabridged version of The Three Musketeers, ten years ago, to learn that D’Artagnan raped Milady by deception (something omitted from the version I had read at school).
    That plotline never came up in Dogtanian and the three muskehounds I remember watching as a kid.
    My school version of the book was bowdlerised. When you read the unabridged version, you realise the musketeers are actually quite a nasty bunch, and that in fact, Milady is no worse than they are, perhaps slightly more ethical in fact.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    For infallibility to be legitimate you need to be seated on your throne
    Well, it's where I do most of my PB posting...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,632
    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Interesting facts from the US election.

    In the states Trump won he received 50,818,192 votes
    In the states he lost 26,483,267

    Harris won 2,700,470 more votes in the states she lost compared to the states she won !

    That is interesting. What does it imply?

    Also, the vote pretty much removed any EC bias either way. Harris lost the tipping state by about the same as she lost the PV.
    0.23% bias toward Trump in the end, tipping state PA.

    Every state on wikipedia now has the correct Harris/Trump total in the top right box btw.
    Just had a look at the wiki summary. In terms of vote share Michigan IS the USA.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330
    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Man who helped design breathalysers is banned for drink-driving
    Dr Richard Lacey, 70, said he had misjudged how much he had drunk during lunch after crashing on a roundabout near Talgarth, Powys

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w (£££)

    If he's 70 he must have been very precocious?
    He might not have invented the original one, but merely been involved with the manufacturing design of a specific model.

    As an aside, you can buy breathalyzers on Amazon.

    I have one.

    I am staggered by how drunk I am before I pass the 0.08% level. There's no way I would go anywhere near a car even at the 0.06% or 0.04% levels.
    I don't have a car so it doesn't worry me!

    But I did try something even better than that once. I went to a friend's 40th party. He'd got Microsoft Flight Simulator which I had never seen before so of course I disappeared for a while before, and during, the party to try it out. It was the kind that showed your flight vertical/horizontal profile after you landed etc. I was absolutely amazed at the effect of 1, 2 and 3 glasses of wine successively. A lovely smooth descent and flare became a complete shambles after 2 glasses, and I'm not petite, and wasn't feeling the wine at all. An object lesson in the way in which one feels perfectly competent to drive while being actually too sloshed.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972
    edited December 19
    Quality OBN stuff from Labour MP Tan Dhesi.

    https://x.com/jasongroves1/status/1869771154111729710?s=61
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,945
    "Police called as two Tory councillors square up

    Police officers turned up to a council meeting after an "explosive" argument between councillors of different political groups and the public. The Oldham Council meeting was adjourned after a heated debate centred around the "controversial" Places for Everyone housing scheme. Tensions rose to the point that members of the public and councillors were hurling abuse at each other and the acting borough solicitor, including references to "dictators" and "Nazi sympathisers". Oldham Mayor Zahid Chauhan called for an adjournment to Wednesday evening's meeting but the conflict did not end there. A riot van and police cars were pictured outside the council building. It is thought police had also been called to a protest gathering outside."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1eldn0j7qgo
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    I

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re profiles:

    @TSE and I will discuss.

    And we will then issue an edict.

    Or maybe more than one.

    It may be that there are some rules about moderator infallibility that we slip in there.

    Does this mean putting emails out to public view, if private posting is banned, please? (Sorry, just a bit confused about what 'private profile' means.)
    Private profile means others not being able to see your past comments.

    A public profile means your past comments are visible on your profile but your email address is not.
    I managed to work that out all on my own, meagre IQ notwithstanding.
    I know, it’s quite funny.

    The reality is that with the new Online Safety Bill there’s no privacy available on the interweb.

    The problem will be for people who post dodgy stuff and the sites therein.
    TBF to Leon, I can well understand his reluctance to be identifiable IRL via the site - but that's not what we're discussing at all, and is not what has happened.
    Indeed, not really clear on what the difference is.
    In fairness though im currently awaiting an x-ray after being knocked off my bike, so im not as with it as usual.
    Oh. I hope all turns out ok with that.
    Currently stiff and awkward. And also theres the back.

    Very surreal experience, been a long time since any medical woes.
    Take notes and write a header on the state of the NHS. You can email it to TSE from your trolley in the corridor any time before Christmas. He's got the crossword for that day.
    The weirdest note so far is a lot of the staff are very attractive. No head knock btw, so thats legit.

    Dr Foxy clearly not just a name.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894

    Omnium said:

    Baffling that Leon should be the one who worries about being identified.

    We all know he's Sean Trellis, works for the Oldie, lives in Camden above a disused sex-shop. 47e Artillery Terrace. If he's not at home then his local is the Edinboro Castle. And his barber is the one with the newly acquired Ferrari.

    To be fair to Leon, the fear of having one's reputation (or career in local politics) ruined by a determined campaigner digging through old posts is not entirely unjustified. Imagine if Leon is up for Flintknapper of the Year and a rival digs up his holiday snaps showing more half-empty glasses than faux phalluses: instant disqualification! And jigsaw identification of other pseudonymous posters might easily be possible.
    Of course I have a degree of sympathy with his thoughts on this. I'd forgotten his political aspirations. I'd almost forgotten the Natural Law party entirely. ChatGPT picks up on none of this by the way. Amazing!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    edited December 19

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    Aw diddums.

    Simply don't say anything that will get you in trouble - like the rest of us have to do. Basically, don't be an asshat.

    Ah, yes I see your problem... ;)
    I believe the problem is enetering into a contractual obligation not to say anythng asshatty that could come back to embarrass the party you have entered into a contract with.

    Then some twat jumps up and down and says "Sir! Sir!! But look at this asshatty comment he said x years ago!" When he wasn't under any contractual obligation, but can still be deemed to be an embarrassment.

    As someone who has said quite a few provacative things over the years, sometimes just to wind somebody up, I wouldn't want those dug up to embarrass me with a new employer.

    What was said when you were posting whilst contractually free shouldn't then be capable of being highlighted once you are not. Moderators changing the rules so as to allow this to happen is very bad form. Very bad indeed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,433
    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Man who helped design breathalysers is banned for drink-driving
    Dr Richard Lacey, 70, said he had misjudged how much he had drunk during lunch after crashing on a roundabout near Talgarth, Powys

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w (£££)

    If he's 70 he must have been very precocious?
    He might not have invented the original one, but merely been involved with the manufacturing design of a specific model.

    As an aside, you can buy breathalyzers on Amazon.

    I have one.

    I am staggered by how drunk I am before I pass the 0.08% level. There's no way I would go anywhere near a car even at the 0.06% or 0.04% levels.
    I don't have a car so it doesn't worry me!

    But I did try something even better than that once. I went to a friend's 40th party. He'd got Microsoft Flight Simulator which I had never seen before so of course I disappeared for a while before, and during, the party to try it out. It was the kind that showed your flight vertical/horizontal profile after you landed etc. I was absolutely amazed at the effect of 1, 2 and 3 glasses of wine successively. A lovely smooth descent and flare became a complete shambles after 2 glasses, and I'm not petite, and wasn't feeling the wine at all. An object lesson in the way in which one feels perfectly competent to drive while being actually too sloshed.
    When he was a youth, my dad did some work on a sheep farm in the Aussie outback. One evening, he went with a few of the hands to the nearest 'town' for some drinks. It was a multi-hour journey cross-country, through a gate through the fence, and on. They had a few drinks - not too many - then drove back.

    A few days later he saw the tyre tracks they had made. The ones out had been straight-ish. The ones coming back were all over the place.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,932
    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Man who helped design breathalysers is banned for drink-driving
    Dr Richard Lacey, 70, said he had misjudged how much he had drunk during lunch after crashing on a roundabout near Talgarth, Powys

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w (£££)

    If he's 70 he must have been very precocious?
    He might not have invented the original one, but merely been involved with the manufacturing design of a specific model.

    As an aside, you can buy breathalyzers on Amazon.

    I have one.

    I am staggered by how drunk I am before I pass the 0.08% level. There's no way I would go anywhere near a car even at the 0.06% or 0.04% levels.
    I don't have a car so it doesn't worry me!

    But I did try something even better than that once. I went to a friend's 40th party. He'd got Microsoft Flight Simulator which I had never seen before so of course I disappeared for a while before, and during, the party to try it out. It was the kind that showed your flight vertical/horizontal profile after you landed etc. I was absolutely amazed at the effect of 1, 2 and 3 glasses of wine successively. A lovely smooth descent and flare became a complete shambles after 2 glasses, and I'm not petite, and wasn't feeling the wine at all. An object lesson in the way in which one feels perfectly competent to drive while being actually too sloshed.
    Many years ago I decided to cycle to the pub to meet up with friends for a beer. I had 3 pints over quite some time and felt completely sober. I didn't feel so sober once on the bike. I was sober enough to know I shouldn't be cycling as I nearly clipped the kerb with my peddles several times. I wouldn't drive after 3 pints even though I clearly feel able to and clearly I am not.
  • Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Baffling that Leon should be the one who worries about being identified.

    We all know he's Sean Trellis, works for the Oldie, lives in Camden above a disused sex-shop. 47e Artillery Terrace. If he's not at home then his local is the Edinboro Castle. And his barber is the one with the newly acquired Ferrari.

    To be fair to Leon, the fear of having one's reputation (or career in local politics) ruined by a determined campaigner digging through old posts is not entirely unjustified. Imagine if Leon is up for Flintknapper of the Year and a rival digs up his holiday snaps showing more half-empty glasses than faux phalluses: instant disqualification! And jigsaw identification of other pseudonymous posters might easily be possible.
    Of course I have a degree of sympathy with his thoughts on this. I'd forgotten his political aspirations. I'd almost forgotten the Natural Law party entirely. ChatGPT picks up on none of this by the way. Amazing!
    I dimly recall in the early days a prospective councillor (or maybe an actual one) being thus undermined (and later turning out to have other skeletons).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934

    Man who helped design breathalysers is banned for drink-driving
    Dr Richard Lacey, 70, said he had misjudged how much he had drunk during lunch after crashing on a roundabout near Talgarth, Powys

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w (£££)

    When I was setting off in the early hours to go on a twitch, I would often get stopped and breathlysed. As a notorious teetotaller, I said they were wasting a test, but hey-ho, pass me the kit.

    I remember one copper getting very excited because he thought one crystal had ever so slightly changed colour...
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,972
    Probably the worst take on anything you would ever see. Or one of them.

    This persons take on Starmer and the WASPI whiners.

    https://x.com/isthatyourdonk1/status/1869733070250860959?s=61
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,877
    edited December 19
    Carnyx said:

    Man who helped design breathalysers is banned for drink-driving
    Dr Richard Lacey, 70, said he had misjudged how much he had drunk during lunch after crashing on a roundabout near Talgarth, Powys

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w (£££)

    If he's 70 he must have been very precocious?
    Strange, inconsistent reporting. We have:

    “I had a couple of glasses of wine with lunch and a few pints of beer."
    “The defendant said he had drunk a couple of pints and a bottle of wine. He failed the roadside breath test and was arrested.”
    The court was told Lacey’s breath was measured at 41 micrograms, exceeding the legal limit of 35 micrograms.

    Marginally over the limit, and the amount of drink reported bears no relation, but completely immobilised his vehicle somehow. For those who don't keep track, one pint of beer or one glass of wine is 2-3 units.

    He of all people should know that drink-impaired driving at 1/3 of our legal blood alcohol limit makes you 3x as likely to die in a crash.

    https://archive.is/20241219144041/https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w#selection-1551.0-1551.170
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,335
    edited December 19

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Here's a test for Labour. Economic Growth versus the Green Fringe de-growth nutters. Will they allow a 3rd runway at Heathrow or not ?

    "Heathrow is in talks with the Government about controversial plans for a third runway and has announced a £2.3billion upgrade.

    Europe’s busiest airport is in fresh discussions with ministers and airlines in its latest push in a long battle to expand.

    Chief executive Thomas Woldbye wants to boost existing infrastructure -while drumming up support for a third runway."


    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/heathrow-launches-fresh-bid-to-build-third-runway-as-it-presses-ahead-with-2-3bn-upgrade/ar-AA1w7fVx?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2accb09b1e754738b0928a30e82e5b7c&ei=17

    I remember studying this case in-depth as part of a previous life.

    It would be much more environmentally friendly to allow the third runway. At the moment we burn jet fuel pointlessly day after day and will forever as planes circle around unable to land.

    The real reason it’s opposed is for silly NIMBY reasons.

    So I would support it and have it built ASAP.
    I remember N.E. Labour MP Cat McKinnell was strongly in favour of it too simply as she believed it would help bring more wealth and opportunities to the regions.

    So there is a regional imperative here too.
    This is another decision that I expect will be opposed by a lot of people but SKS really should just approve it.

    Royal Mail, I am pretty sceptical about that being sold off. But I’m also pretty sceptical about it being privatised in the first place. Another example of privatisation not resulting in a better or more efficient service. Just accept that some things are better run by the state and others not. Thankfully this Labour at least seem pretty pragmatic in that sense.

    Labour’s problem is that politically the big decisions they can make seem to be universally unpopular. I can’t think of any popular big decisions they can make at the moment. Any ideas?
    Yes

    Reduce taxes on business, including reducing corporation tax, and let them drive the growth rather than the dead hand of the state
    The people (apparently) demand a high expenditure welfare state & that money has to come out of the economy somewhere or else you get rampant inflation.

    Perhaps BCH’s question ought to be: what political decisions can the current Labour government take the will a) be popular and b) not have negative 2nd order effects that outweigh that positive effect?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,894

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Baffling that Leon should be the one who worries about being identified.

    We all know he's Sean Trellis, works for the Oldie, lives in Camden above a disused sex-shop. 47e Artillery Terrace. If he's not at home then his local is the Edinboro Castle. And his barber is the one with the newly acquired Ferrari.

    To be fair to Leon, the fear of having one's reputation (or career in local politics) ruined by a determined campaigner digging through old posts is not entirely unjustified. Imagine if Leon is up for Flintknapper of the Year and a rival digs up his holiday snaps showing more half-empty glasses than faux phalluses: instant disqualification! And jigsaw identification of other pseudonymous posters might easily be possible.
    Of course I have a degree of sympathy with his thoughts on this. I'd forgotten his political aspirations. I'd almost forgotten the Natural Law party entirely. ChatGPT picks up on none of this by the way. Amazing!
    I dimly recall in the early days a prospective councillor (or maybe an actual one) being thus undermined (and later turning out to have other skeletons).
    Yogic flying featured in their manifesto I believe, surely at the expense of flint-knapping.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,932

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    Aw diddums.

    Simply don't say anything that will get you in trouble - like the rest of us have to do. Basically, don't be an asshat.

    Ah, yes I see your problem... ;)
    I believe the problem is enetering into a contractual obligation not to say anythng asshatty that could come back to embarrass the party you have entered into a contract with.

    Then some twat jumps up and down and says "Sir! Sir!! But look at this asshatty comment he said x years ago!" When he wasn't under any contractual obligation, but can still be deemed to be an embarrassment.

    As someone who has said quite a few provacative things over the years, sometimes just to wind somebody up, I wouldn't want those dug up to embarrass me with a new employer.

    What was said when you were posting whilst contractually free shouldn't then be capable of being highlighted once you are not. Moderators changing the rules so as to allow this to happen is very bad form. Very bad indeed.
    But that is not the issue is it?

    Nobody is going to use the private profile to look at something you said years ago. It would be a monumental task. Yet anyone with a bit of IT knowledge can easily go and look at something you said years ago even with the private profile on.

    The private profile does not protect this and the public profile would not be used to exploit this.

    So the scenario you give is a non-issue.

    You are only going to look up what someone said a few days ago at most as per today's example
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    Taz said:

    Here's a test for Labour. Economic Growth versus the Green Fringe de-growth nutters. Will they allow a 3rd runway at Heathrow or not ?

    "Heathrow is in talks with the Government about controversial plans for a third runway and has announced a £2.3billion upgrade.

    Europe’s busiest airport is in fresh discussions with ministers and airlines in its latest push in a long battle to expand.

    Chief executive Thomas Woldbye wants to boost existing infrastructure -while drumming up support for a third runway."


    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/heathrow-launches-fresh-bid-to-build-third-runway-as-it-presses-ahead-with-2-3bn-upgrade/ar-AA1w7fVx?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2accb09b1e754738b0928a30e82e5b7c&ei=17

    JFDI, preferably about two decades ago.

    UK is pretty much the worst place in the world at building new infrastructure. The only other place that comes close is the US.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,632
    kjh said:

    Carnyx said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Man who helped design breathalysers is banned for drink-driving
    Dr Richard Lacey, 70, said he had misjudged how much he had drunk during lunch after crashing on a roundabout near Talgarth, Powys

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w (£££)

    If he's 70 he must have been very precocious?
    He might not have invented the original one, but merely been involved with the manufacturing design of a specific model.

    As an aside, you can buy breathalyzers on Amazon.

    I have one.

    I am staggered by how drunk I am before I pass the 0.08% level. There's no way I would go anywhere near a car even at the 0.06% or 0.04% levels.
    I don't have a car so it doesn't worry me!

    But I did try something even better than that once. I went to a friend's 40th party. He'd got Microsoft Flight Simulator which I had never seen before so of course I disappeared for a while before, and during, the party to try it out. It was the kind that showed your flight vertical/horizontal profile after you landed etc. I was absolutely amazed at the effect of 1, 2 and 3 glasses of wine successively. A lovely smooth descent and flare became a complete shambles after 2 glasses, and I'm not petite, and wasn't feeling the wine at all. An object lesson in the way in which one feels perfectly competent to drive while being actually too sloshed.
    Many years ago I decided to cycle to the pub to meet up with friends for a beer. I had 3 pints over quite some time and felt completely sober. I didn't feel so sober once on the bike. I was sober enough to know I shouldn't be cycling as I nearly clipped the kerb with my peddles several times. I wouldn't drive after 3 pints even though I clearly feel able to and clearly I am not.
    Safest to not drink at all if you're driving probably. Forget about counting, take it out of the equation. The irony is I failed my driving test through nerves and passed 2nd time after having a large vodka.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,433

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cookie said:

    Rates held. Why would Rachel Reeves do this!?!?

    Because she despises borrowers and savers in equal measure.
    To be clear, I am giving you a like because this made me laugh, not because I think this is true. (I get slightly riled by claims that politician x takes action y because he hates section of the electorate z.)
    Taylor's vote (The only Reeves appointment so far) makes it clear she is likely more on the side of borrowers tbh.
    As she's a borrower herself, on behalf of close to bankrupt Britain that is no surprise.
    Growth forecast slashed for Q4 2024 to 0 %, so no growth, down from 0.3% estimated last month.

    Well done Rachel, a winning economic strategy. All that doom and gloom and talking down the economy and the economic situation has really reaped rewards.
    This is a quite catastrophic government. PB is right to bang on about it. The worst government of my entire life, I think
    It's hard to know what Reeves thinks she's doing. Six months ago, I'd assumed that we would have respectable growth for the rest of the year and 2025. The government worked hard to choke it off.
    Rachel from Accounts has no fucking clue what she’s doing. Nor does Sir Sheer Wanker. David fucking Lammy god help us

    They’re all utter mediocrities with limited brains, woke ideas and the mindsets of confused county councillors and deputy head teachers from Newent

    I read in the Spec yesterday that HMG is really worried about the collapsing Chagos deal and dearly want to see it through. Why? Not because it’s any good but because it’s “one of their few concrete achievements”

    That’s it. The measure of their awfulness is that their main “concrete achievement” is
    giving away sovereign British territory, to a geopolitical enemy, and making us pay for it
    I told you not to vote for them…
    We're up to Taz and Leon with buyer's remorse I think from voting Labour at the last GE ?

    Any more ?
    I still think Starmer was the better option at the election and I strongly hope that the economy picks up, the NHS improves and all the other stuff. There was a very definite sense after Brexit that some remainers were actively (a) wanting things sush as the economy to go badly and (b) delighting in it if it did. Not all remainers for sure, but a goodly number.
    The danger is that we see that now amongst die hard Tories - almost wishing failure on the nation.
    That's an uncomfortable aspect of political partisanship. If the other lot are in you want things to go to shit. The better side of you won't but a big part of you will.
    The daily group therapy for the PB Tories is getting a bit much though. Not only is it depressing, it's also hypocritical – witness the ludicrous spectacle yesterday of their demanding the moderators stopped writing so-called "Kemi is Crap" threads. This is despite the data showing that she is indeed a dud.

    The very same people lapped up the endless articles about Ed Miliband that were in a similar vein.
    Oh do stop fucking whining. It’s democracy. Governments get viciously attacked. It’s just been so long since the Left was in power, you’re not used to it
    It is you who is doing the whining. Every day. Monotonously. You spent a week complaining vocally about December sunset times FFS.
    lol! I haven’t been on the site all week, for reasons given

    Are you ok? Christmas can be a tough time
    Does tens of posts a day rather than several hundred count as not being on the site all week?
    Entire days have passed and I’ve barely glanced at PB

    True story

    1. Lurgy - ugh
    2. Taxes - ugh
    3. Remarkable new project, one of the most exciting creative projects I’ve ever encountered. Genuine mind-fuck 🕺🕺🍾🍾👏👏
    You do know we can see your history don't you? Pages of posts every single day in December so far.

    Honestly you aren't very good at this fibbing lark are you?
    I said “barely glanced” not “didn’t post at all”

    I’m a great multitasker - I can generally bang out 100 comments a day on PB even when I’m busy. If it goes below 30 I must be SERIOUSLY distracted. Below 10, call an ambulance or send flowers
    God you are useless at lying.

    Quote: 'I haven’t been on the site all week'
    I’m glad you get this unique micro-erection policing the exactitude of my comments, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to deprive your wife her annual 3 seconds of sexual gratification
    Rattled or what. Why go private if you weren't :smiley:
    No, I thought my account WAS private. It certainly was a few months ago - coz that’s how I like it. Maybe I bodged it when tipsy

    Helpfully you made me check, so now it’s private again. Thankyou!
    @TheScreamingEagles un-privatised you a while ago because of complaints by other posters. He did post that he had done it.
    As I’ve said, I probably can’t continue commenting if I am unable to stay private, or - indeed - if the mods will make me public without even telling me
    Aw diddums.

    Simply don't say anything that will get you in trouble - like the rest of us have to do. Basically, don't be an asshat.

    Ah, yes I see your problem... ;)
    I believe the problem is enetering into a contractual obligation not to say anythng asshatty that could come back to embarrass the party you have entered into a contract with.

    Then some twat jumps up and down and says "Sir! Sir!! But look at this asshatty comment he said x years ago!" When he wasn't under any contractual obligation, but can still be deemed to be an embarrassment.

    As someone who has said quite a few provacative things over the years, sometimes just to wind somebody up, I wouldn't want those dug up to embarrass me with a new employer.

    What was said when you were posting whilst contractually free shouldn't then be capable of being highlighted once you are not. Moderators changing the rules so as to allow this to happen is very bad form. Very bad indeed.
    Nah, I don't buy that.

    For one thing, it's not as if he's stopped making asshatty comments. Heck, he makes openly racist ones.

    He's just a pathetic little coward, who wants the ability to be 'edgy' on here without comeback. If he believes what he says, then he should stand by it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330
    edited December 19
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Baffling that Leon should be the one who worries about being identified.

    We all know he's Sean Trellis, works for the Oldie, lives in Camden above a disused sex-shop. 47e Artillery Terrace. If he's not at home then his local is the Edinboro Castle. And his barber is the one with the newly acquired Ferrari.

    To be fair to Leon, the fear of having one's reputation (or career in local politics) ruined by a determined campaigner digging through old posts is not entirely unjustified. Imagine if Leon is up for Flintknapper of the Year and a rival digs up his holiday snaps showing more half-empty glasses than faux phalluses: instant disqualification! And jigsaw identification of other pseudonymous posters might easily be possible.
    Of course I have a degree of sympathy with his thoughts on this. I'd forgotten his political aspirations. I'd almost forgotten the Natural Law party entirely. ChatGPT picks up on none of this by the way. Amazing!
    I dimly recall in the early days a prospective councillor (or maybe an actual one) being thus undermined (and later turning out to have other skeletons).
    Yogic flying featured in their manifesto I believe, surely at the expense of flint-knapping.
    No, surely, it was the other way round. With a knapper's expense account and freebies such as first class lounges at the airport and on the plane, who needs the hassle of DIY flying?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,161

    Man who helped design breathalysers is banned for drink-driving
    Dr Richard Lacey, 70, said he had misjudged how much he had drunk during lunch after crashing on a roundabout near Talgarth, Powys

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w (£££)

    I think I would want a couple of stiff drinks with my lunch if I had just crashed on a roundabout.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,877
    edited December 19
    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Man who helped design breathalysers is banned for drink-driving
    Dr Richard Lacey, 70, said he had misjudged how much he had drunk during lunch after crashing on a roundabout near Talgarth, Powys

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w (£££)

    If he's 70 he must have been very precocious?
    He might not have invented the original one, but merely been involved with the manufacturing design of a specific model.

    As an aside, you can buy breathalyzers on Amazon.

    I have one.

    I am staggered by how drunk I am before I pass the 0.08% level. There's no way I would go anywhere near a car even at the 0.06% or 0.04% levels.
    How do they get a 0.08% number, which is the measurement for blood concentration - is it calibrated to the blood level from a breath test? Surely Joe Public won't be giving a blood sample to himself?

    Everywhere else in Europe except Malta has their general drink driving limits set at 2/3, 1/2 or 1/4 of ours. Or zero.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330
    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Carnyx said:

    Man who helped design breathalysers is banned for drink-driving
    Dr Richard Lacey, 70, said he had misjudged how much he had drunk during lunch after crashing on a roundabout near Talgarth, Powys

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/man-who-helped-design-breathalysers-is-banned-for-drink-driving-292thg70w (£££)

    If he's 70 he must have been very precocious?
    He might not have invented the original one, but merely been involved with the manufacturing design of a specific model.

    As an aside, you can buy breathalyzers on Amazon.

    I have one.

    I am staggered by how drunk I am before I pass the 0.08% level. There's no way I would go anywhere near a car even at the 0.06% or 0.04% levels.
    How do they get a 0.08% number, which is the measurement for blood concentration - is it calibrated to the blood level from a breath test? Surely Joe Public won't be giving a blood sample to himself?

    Everywhere else in Europe except Malta has their general drink driving limits set at 2/3, 1/2 or 1/4 of ours. Or zero.
    Scotland included in that 'else in Europe' too.
Sign In or Register to comment.