Reform collapsing would be a gift to the Conservatives. They will struggle if it doesn't, in fact
What's the longest Farage and a party has gone without serious ructions? I know he was in UKIP for ages but it was still occasionally bumpy even before he departed for good.
I don't think Reform are imminently about to collapse, but it does feel like all or nothing with them sometimes - there are still people desperately hoping they will replace the Conservatives, but they could also just disappear if things go wrong.
The real problems start if they get a shedload of councillors elected in May. Assuming there are any elections in May. The UKIP experience was that where they did well, such as in Lincolnshire, things fell apart very rapidly. As I recall one council there ended with the UKIP councillors splitting into three different groups with infighting all round
They did no vetting on most of the councillor candidates, many of whom were supposed to be no more than paper candidates and didn’t expect to be elected, only to discover that a number of them had been BNP members or friends of “Tommy”.
For all that we can criticise Farage, the one thing he’s always been really good at is dealing quickly with any unsavoury types who have infiltrated his party.
It's a tricky balancing act for him - he doesn't want them in his party (and fair play to him for that) but he does want their votes.
Oh bugger, got a speeding fine for 24 in a 20 zone.
I used to think there was a "10% plus two miles" leeway. Until I got done for 77 mph on the M11.
It wasn't until some years later it clicked. I was driving a black car. Which was worth seven points when the bored traffic cops were playing "snooker"...
Reform collapsing would be a gift to the Conservatives. They will struggle if it doesn't, in fact
What's the longest Farage and a party has gone without serious ructions? I know he was in UKIP for ages but it was still occasionally bumpy even before he departed for good.
I don't think Reform are imminently about to collapse, but it does feel like all or nothing with them sometimes - there are still people desperately hoping they will replace the Conservatives, but they could also just disappear if things go wrong.
The real problems start if they get a shedload of councillors elected in May. Assuming there are any elections in May. The UKIP experience was that where they did well, such as in Lincolnshire, things fell apart very rapidly. As I recall one council there ended with the UKIP councillors splitting into three different groups with infighting all round
The problems start when you start to impose group discipline. Newbies get that the group votes for them to get the committee place they have waited all their life for. They don't get that that means they stay around and vote so another councillor gets the place he has always wanted. Truly it is like herding cats, been there too often. In secret votes the LDs made their councillors put a sign on the ballot paper so the LD teller knew who had voted and who had voted against the LD candidate.
I may have misunderstood this, but anyone who thinks the British Isles have, on average, in the last 2000 years been a single unity with a single name is labouring under serious misapprehension.
It's an odd way of looking at it, yes. But they're looking at the British Isles of Roman times as a single entity. In a similar (though not the same) manner, they count the Holy Roman Empire as a single entity.
All the analysis is really showing is that there are some geographical features which make for fairly stable boundaries.
Oh bugger, got a speeding fine for 24 in a 20 zone.
I used to think there was a "10% plus two miles" leeway. Until I got done for 77 mph on the M11.
It wasn't until some years later it clicked. I was driving a black car. Which was worth seven points when the bored traffic cops were playing "snooker"...
There is 10% plus two miles per hour concept, but its a guide for police rather than a guarantee for the driver unfortunately. Some police forces ignore it.
Oh bugger, got a speeding fine for 24 in a 20 zone.
I used to think there was a "10% plus two miles" leeway. Until I got done for 77 mph on the M11.
It wasn't until some years later it clicked. I was driving a black car. Which was worth seven points when the bored traffic cops were playing "snooker"...
77 in the 70, sh!t that’s not playing fair any more.
The 70 limit “National Speed Limit” was enacted in IIRC 1973 in response to the oil crisis, when if you didn’t have an E-Type or a 911 you weren’t going faster than that anyway. Using modern cars’ performance as a benchmark, we should now have a limit of about 130.
The Germans, as is often the case in late 20th Century motoring, had the right idea to leave the rural stretches of the motorway with no speed limit. The M6 Toll really missed a trick to make a proper British Autobahn.
Photo of the day: I went up to Rivington Pike before dawn to watch the sunset. To my surprise, at least 40 other people had the same idea. This isn't the first time I've gone somewhere high to watch a sunrise or sunset and there's almost never anyone else there. It didn't seem like the other 40 people knew each other, either, beyond the twos and threes they'd arrived in. Accents from Bolton and Wigan and Manchester and Liverpool and maybe others. A good 15 or so dogs too. A bit of a party atmosphere. It was very Lancashire. The sun was greeted by the woman next to me with an "ey up", and someone commenting approvingly and without apparent irony that it was right on schedule. Pleasant way to start the day, anyway.
Photo of the day: I went up to Rivington Pike before dawn to watch the sunset. To my surprise, at least 40 other people had the same idea. This isn't the first time I've gone somewhere high to watch a sunrise or sunset and there's almost never anyone else there. It didn't seem like the other 40 people knew each other, either, beyond the twos and threes they'd arrived in. Accents from Bolton and Wigan and Manchester and Liverpool and maybe others. A good 15 or so dogs too. A bit of a party atmosphere. It was very Lancashire. The sun was greeted by the woman next to me with an "ey up", and someone commenting approvingly and without apparent irony that it was right on schedule. Pleasant way to start the day, anyway.
You went up before dawn to watch the sunset?
Presumably Dawn was the lady just behind you in the sunset queue?
I saw Farage interviewed on Newsnight last night - I thought he looked noticeably older / more frail than even just 6 months ago at the GE.
Maybe he was tired or whatever - but just on the basis of how he looked I think it must be at least in significant doubt that he will still be leader and fully engaged in politics at the next GE.
Oh bugger, got a speeding fine for 24 in a 20 zone.
I used to think there was a "10% plus two miles" leeway. Until I got done for 77 mph on the M11.
It wasn't until some years later it clicked. I was driving a black car. Which was worth seven points when the bored traffic cops were playing "snooker"...
77 in the 70, sh!t that’s not playing fair any more.
The 70 limit “National Speed Limit” was enacted in IIRC 1973 in response to the oil crisis, when if you didn’t have an E-Type or a 911 you weren’t going faster than that anyway. Using modern cars’ performance as a benchmark, we should now have a limit of about 130.
The Germans, as is often the case in late 20th Century motoring, had the right idea to leave the rural stretches of the motorway with no speed limit. The M6 Toll really missed a trick to make a proper British Autobahn.
I must admit our Skoda cruises very comfortably at about 75, but it's quite difficult to hold it to 70. And no, we haven't got cruise control.
Reform collapsing would be a gift to the Conservatives. They will struggle if it doesn't, in fact
What's the longest Farage and a party has gone without serious ructions? I know he was in UKIP for ages but it was still occasionally bumpy even before he departed for good.
I don't think Reform are imminently about to collapse, but it does feel like all or nothing with them sometimes - there are still people desperately hoping they will replace the Conservatives, but they could also just disappear if things go wrong.
The real problems start if they get a shedload of councillors elected in May. Assuming there are any elections in May. The UKIP experience was that where they did well, such as in Lincolnshire, things fell apart very rapidly. As I recall one council there ended with the UKIP councillors splitting into three different groups with infighting all round
They did no vetting on most of the councillor candidates, many of whom were supposed to be no more than paper candidates and didn’t expect to be elected, only to discover that a number of them had been BNP members or friends of “Tommy”.
For all that we can criticise Farage, the one thing he’s always been really good at is dealing quickly with any unsavoury types who have infiltrated his party.
It's a tricky balancing act for him - he doesn't want them in his party (and fair play to him for that) but he does want their votes.
My unscientific poll of the publican know around the corner from here, says he won't vote Reform "ever again", if Farage is removed at Musk's behest.
Rangoon is a bit of a shithole. A shithole full of post imperial noom but a bit of a shithole nonethiess
We built an entire and magnificent Victorian/Edwardian city on the banks of the woogly-waggly here, a mighty grid of banks and churches and city halls and customs houses and ornate Anglo-Burmese train stations - surrounding the golden pagodas - and now it all rots like a collection of Sicilian palazzi and trees grow through the roofs of the Port Authority HQ and Mon women, cheeks daubed with yellow thanaka paste, squat in the mildewed porches of the shuttered Strand Hotel selling tiny lychees and cheap Chinese dolls
There's some value in seeing it, though, as it's a perfect microcosm of much of the post-Imperial third world. At least that's what I thought when I was there a decade ago.
We introduced state of the art Victorian governance and since we left, rather than build on our achievements with the added blessings of self-determination and democracy they have let it fall apart and the rest of the place with it.
A pattern replicated in many places, sadly, from Hong Kong to Freetown to Khartoum to Salisbury to ...
It's 15 years ago that I was there. I quite liked Rangoon, which I found to be very different to a lot of South East Asia, perhaps a view to what Thailand and Vietnam looked like before the impact of the West. Even then though the number of Chinese goods was driving out local goods. I was mostly in Upper Burma though, which is the heartland of Burmese culture.
Burma was run as an outpost of British India, particularly to provide rice to Bengal. In 1942 Rangoon was 50% Bengali, most of whom fled, and often died, in the Empires longest retreat to India. This is a large factor in both the wartime Bengal famine, and the continuing animosity of Burmese to Muslims (seen as an Imperial presence inflicted by Britain on them). State of the art Victorian governance consisted of no say for local people in governance and forced extraction of resources at the point of a gun.
I really liked Burma and might get back there sometime. It has a dreadful and barbaric military government, but magnificent and largely intact cultures and landscapes. There may well be regime change at some point as the military have had a number of recent setbacks in the ongoing civil wars. The rebels vary from pro-democracy students to Narco-oligarchs, via a multiplicity of minority nationalists. To say that Myanmar politics is opaque is one of the great understatement.
Does it have anything to rival that famous Cambodian Temple city ?
The legend of Angkor Wat, I think it's called.
I have not been to Angkor Wat, but Bagan is one of the great sites. It was a city of 1 million people at one time, but all that is left now is the stone pagodas, perhaps a thousand of them in various states of ruin and size, with the civilian buildings all rotted away, leaving a massive plain of stupas.
Shortly before I visited all the local people were cleared off the site, at gunpoint by the SLORC military, without compensation, in order to make it more of a tourist site. Burma is full of that sort of brutal history amongst the beauty.
Angkor Wat is arguably THE single most impressive monument from the pre-modern world. And yes I’m including the pantheon, pyramids, Hagia Sophia, any medieval cathedrals (tho if you take them all together), Luxor; macchu pichu, Teotihuacan, and all
I’ve seen them all and Angkor Wat remains - to my mind - in a dreamy world of its own. Albeit now blighted by billions of tourists
I’ll be interested to compare Bagan. I very much doubt it’s in the same league but it does sound fabulous
I am excluding Gobekli Tepe and the tas Tepeler because you have to. They are more like alien cities from Martian invasions
I was going to say Gobekli Tepe is surely the most amazing example of ancient civilisation. Dated to 10,000 BC and it's just insane. Demolishes the idea that ancient humans were simple hunter gatherers and the African origin theory. It's been, err, interesting watching woke scientists try harder and harder to hold onto the African origin theory to the point of attempting to excommunicate scientists who dare to defy the prevailing theory. It's always amazing how scientific method takes a back seat when establishment approved ideas get disproved.
There is literally nothing you guys won't blame on woke. Fires in California, academics being arseholes, incitement to to violence leading to convictions.
All of these things have been going on for centuries.
Are you saying woke has been going on for centuries?
Alabama 1860s: "All those woke evolutionists proving that humans are a single race!"
1830s, more likely.
Both, quite probably, IIRC: just different *kinds* of evolutionist.
It's the flaw with the "ignore them, they want the attention, they will get bored in a while" strategy for dealing with terrible children.
It often does work, and it's a reasonable place to start. But for some children, being ignored is just a cue to turn up the volume. Because they really, really want the attention.
The evidence that Musk is in the second category is getting hard to... ignore.
Oh bugger, got a speeding fine for 24 in a 20 zone.
I'll see you on the speed awareness course. First offence in circa 1.5 million miles since 1979. 35 in a 30 on Christmas Day.
An elderly friend of mine was fined for 35 in a 30 zone. She was highly indignant and said 'But I go that way every day!' Not sure what difference she thought that made.
Boomer Privilege.
No, I'm the boomer. She was in the Land Army during WWII. My anecdote goes back a bit.
I saw Farage interviewed on Newsnight last night - I thought he looked noticeably older / more frail than even just 6 months ago at the GE.
Maybe he was tired or whatever - but just on the basis of how he looked I think it must be at least in significant doubt that he will still be leader and fully engaged in politics at the next GE.
He's a bit young to be frail, surely, only on his late 'fifties. He does look a bit weary, though.
Reform collapsing would be a gift to the Conservatives. They will struggle if it doesn't, in fact
What's the longest Farage and a party has gone without serious ructions? I know he was in UKIP for ages but it was still occasionally bumpy even before he departed for good.
I don't think Reform are imminently about to collapse, but it does feel like all or nothing with them sometimes - there are still people desperately hoping they will replace the Conservatives, but they could also just disappear if things go wrong.
The real problems start if they get a shedload of councillors elected in May. Assuming there are any elections in May. The UKIP experience was that where they did well, such as in Lincolnshire, things fell apart very rapidly. As I recall one council there ended with the UKIP councillors splitting into three different groups with infighting all round
They did no vetting on most of the councillor candidates, many of whom were supposed to be no more than paper candidates and didn’t expect to be elected, only to discover that a number of them had been BNP members or friends of “Tommy”.
For all that we can criticise Farage, the one thing he’s always been really good at is dealing quickly with any unsavoury types who have infiltrated his party.
It's a tricky balancing act for him - he doesn't want them in his party (and fair play to him for that) but he does want their votes.
My unscientific poll of the publican know around the corner from here, says he won't vote Reform "ever again", if Farage is removed at Musk's behest.
Glad to hear it. I don't have a whole lot of time for Reform voters as a whole but I would guess that one area where they and I might be of one opinion is that it isn't up to foreign billionaires who leads our political parties.
I saw Farage interviewed on Newsnight last night - I thought he looked noticeably older / more frail than even just 6 months ago at the GE.
Maybe he was tired or whatever - but just on the basis of how he looked I think it must be at least in significant doubt that he will still be leader and fully engaged in politics at the next GE.
Rangoon is a bit of a shithole. A shithole full of post imperial noom but a bit of a shithole nonethiess
We built an entire and magnificent Victorian/Edwardian city on the banks of the woogly-waggly here, a mighty grid of banks and churches and city halls and customs houses and ornate Anglo-Burmese train stations - surrounding the golden pagodas - and now it all rots like a collection of Sicilian palazzi and trees grow through the roofs of the Port Authority HQ and Mon women, cheeks daubed with yellow thanaka paste, squat in the mildewed porches of the shuttered Strand Hotel selling tiny lychees and cheap Chinese dolls
There's some value in seeing it, though, as it's a perfect microcosm of much of the post-Imperial third world. At least that's what I thought when I was there a decade ago.
We introduced state of the art Victorian governance and since we left, rather than build on our achievements with the added blessings of self-determination and democracy they have let it fall apart and the rest of the place with it.
A pattern replicated in many places, sadly, from Hong Kong to Freetown to Khartoum to Salisbury to ...
It's 15 years ago that I was there. I quite liked Rangoon, which I found to be very different to a lot of South East Asia, perhaps a view to what Thailand and Vietnam looked like before the impact of the West. Even then though the number of Chinese goods was driving out local goods. I was mostly in Upper Burma though, which is the heartland of Burmese culture.
Burma was run as an outpost of British India, particularly to provide rice to Bengal. In 1942 Rangoon was 50% Bengali, most of whom fled, and often died, in the Empires longest retreat to India. This is a large factor in both the wartime Bengal famine, and the continuing animosity of Burmese to Muslims (seen as an Imperial presence inflicted by Britain on them). State of the art Victorian governance consisted of no say for local people in governance and forced extraction of resources at the point of a gun.
I really liked Burma and might get back there sometime. It has a dreadful and barbaric military government, but magnificent and largely intact cultures and landscapes. There may well be regime change at some point as the military have had a number of recent setbacks in the ongoing civil wars. The rebels vary from pro-democracy students to Narco-oligarchs, via a multiplicity of minority nationalists. To say that Myanmar politics is opaque is one of the great understatement.
Does it have anything to rival that famous Cambodian Temple city ?
The legend of Angkor Wat, I think it's called.
I have not been to Angkor Wat, but Bagan is one of the great sites. It was a city of 1 million people at one time, but all that is left now is the stone pagodas, perhaps a thousand of them in various states of ruin and size, with the civilian buildings all rotted away, leaving a massive plain of stupas.
Shortly before I visited all the local people were cleared off the site, at gunpoint by the SLORC military, without compensation, in order to make it more of a tourist site. Burma is full of that sort of brutal history amongst the beauty.
Angkor Wat is arguably THE single most impressive monument from the pre-modern world. And yes I’m including the pantheon, pyramids, Hagia Sophia, any medieval cathedrals (tho if you take them all together), Luxor; macchu pichu, Teotihuacan, and all
I’ve seen them all and Angkor Wat remains - to my mind - in a dreamy world of its own. Albeit now blighted by billions of tourists
I’ll be interested to compare Bagan. I very much doubt it’s in the same league but it does sound fabulous
I am excluding Gobekli Tepe and the tas Tepeler because you have to. They are more like alien cities from Martian invasions
I was going to say Gobekli Tepe is surely the most amazing example of ancient civilisation. Dated to 10,000 BC and it's just insane. Demolishes the idea that ancient humans were simple hunter gatherers and the African origin theory. It's been, err, interesting watching woke scientists try harder and harder to hold onto the African origin theory to the point of attempting to excommunicate scientists who dare to defy the prevailing theory. It's always amazing how scientific method takes a back seat when establishment approved ideas get disproved.
There is literally nothing you guys won't blame on woke. Fires in California, academics being arseholes, incitement to to violence leading to convictions.
All of these things have been going on for centuries.
Are you saying woke has been going on for centuries?
Alabama 1860s: "All those woke evolutionists proving that humans are a single race!"
1830s, more likely.
Both, quite probably, IIRC: just different *kinds* of evolutionist.
Thinking of the predecessors to De Bow's Review…
They all had a common theme, on the subject of er… separateness.
Oh bugger, got a speeding fine for 24 in a 20 zone.
I used to think there was a "10% plus two miles" leeway. Until I got done for 77 mph on the M11.
It wasn't until some years later it clicked. I was driving a black car. Which was worth seven points when the bored traffic cops were playing "snooker"...
77 in the 70, sh!t that’s not playing fair any more.
The 70 limit “National Speed Limit” was enacted in IIRC 1973 in response to the oil crisis, when if you didn’t have an E-Type or a 911 you weren’t going faster than that anyway. Using modern cars’ performance as a benchmark, we should now have a limit of about 130.
The Germans, as is often the case in late 20th Century motoring, had the right idea to leave the rural stretches of the motorway with no speed limit. The M6 Toll really missed a trick to make a proper British Autobahn.
I must admit our Skoda cruises very comfortably at about 75, but it's quite difficult to hold it to 70. And no, we haven't got cruise control.
I have an old German car (2005 Merc E-Class) which has dual-mode cruise on it.
The first is the usual cruise control, that keeps the speed at what you set and lets you rest your foot, but you can press to overtake. The second mode is a ‘limit’ function, which stops the car from going above a certain speed but you have to keep using your foot; to override it you have to put your foot right to the floor.
Given that I live somewhere that has grey-coloured cameras every mile or two on most of the roads, I’m quite happy that I’ve only had one ticket in three years and around 60,000 miles with the car.
It's the flaw with the "ignore them, they want the attention, they will get bored in a while" strategy for dealing with terrible children.
It often does work, and it's a reasonable place to start. But for some children, being ignored is just a cue to turn up the volume. Because they really, really want the attention.
The evidence that Musk is in the second category is getting hard to... ignore.
Especially when the children have the keys to the car, the house, the burglar alarm, and the gun cellar.
Seriously speaking, thoug, it's just not possible to ignore it. I have a feeling that's why they're having so many top-level discussions with the French which include defence.
I may have misunderstood this, but anyone who thinks the British Isles have, on average, in the last 2000 years been a single unity with a single name is labouring under serious misapprehension.
When Diodorus came and named the whole island Pretannia, sometime around then Classicak era, weren't most people Brythonic-speaking?
Ireland wasn't, for one. And the Romans did divide GB into two, the Province of Britannia + the bit up north with a somwhat unsteady bopundary, or five IIRC in the later Empire (the 4 bits of the former Province + t.b.u.N.).
Are there any overriding reasons why Trump wouldn't see Putin as an ally, and much of Europe as enemies?
And if Trump tells Putin he's welcome to the Baltics (scarily this doesn't seem impossible), which way would Britain go?
The question for Britain now is whether we can treat the US as a reliable ally. I am not at all sure we can. And that has serious implications for our defence and intelligence services, on top of the economic consequences of tariffs and so on.
It may make sense for Britain to stay close to the US even at the cost of abandoning its European allies, and its principles, and wait for MAGA to be replaced with something more palatable. People don't like me calling this Finlandisation, but I think it would be in a way.
I don't really see how we can lut our fingers in our ears, whistle loudly, and, wait till the gruffalo has gone.
Musk is working on reposing government now, and via Trump he potentially has access to Anerica's entire intelligence and military infrastructure.
I may have misunderstood this, but anyone who thinks the British Isles have, on average, in the last 2000 years been a single unity with a single name is labouring under serious misapprehension.
It's an odd way of looking at it, yes. But they're looking at the British Isles of Roman times as a single entity. In a similar (though not the same) manner, they count the Holy Roman Empire as a single entity.
All the analysis is really showing is that there are some geographical features which make for fairly stable boundaries.
The Carpathians and the Hungarian Plain certainly form one.
I saw Farage interviewed on Newsnight last night - I thought he looked noticeably older / more frail than even just 6 months ago at the GE.
Maybe he was tired or whatever - but just on the basis of how he looked I think it must be at least in significant doubt that he will still be leader and fully engaged in politics at the next GE.
He's a bit young to be frail, surely, only on his late 'fifties. He does look a bit weary, though.
He needs Musk's endorsement.
60, 61 this April. 64/5 at the next election, which is another reason to be suspicious of the Nigel for PM fanfic. Being a Westminster party leader, even when that party is Reform, takes it out of anyone.
One of the neat tricks the Brexit genie played was to give Boris, Dom, Rishi and the rest of them what they wanted in a way that they surely regretted. That curse hasn't really touched Sir Nigel of Farageshire... yet.
Oh bugger, got a speeding fine for 24 in a 20 zone.
I used to think there was a "10% plus two miles" leeway. Until I got done for 77 mph on the M11.
It wasn't until some years later it clicked. I was driving a black car. Which was worth seven points when the bored traffic cops were playing "snooker"...
Wait, hang on… I assumed I was fine up to 80mph, partly because of the leeway, partly because the speedo overestimates, and partly because no one cares at 80 or below on the motorway.
Now, I have never had any points (including where there are many, many cameras), but are you saying I have been lucky and need to start actually obeying the limit?
Photo of the day: I went up to Rivington Pike before dawn to watch the sunset. To my surprise, at least 40 other people had the same idea. This isn't the first time I've gone somewhere high to watch a sunrise or sunset and there's almost never anyone else there. It didn't seem like the other 40 people knew each other, either, beyond the twos and threes they'd arrived in. Accents from Bolton and Wigan and Manchester and Liverpool and maybe others. A good 15 or so dogs too. A bit of a party atmosphere. It was very Lancashire. The sun was greeted by the woman next to me with an "ey up", and someone commenting approvingly and without apparent irony that it was right on schedule. Pleasant way to start the day, anyway.
You went up before dawn to watch the sunset?
Presumably Dawn was the lady just behind you in the sunset queue?
Oh bugger, got a speeding fine for 24 in a 20 zone.
I used to think there was a "10% plus two miles" leeway. Until I got done for 77 mph on the M11.
It wasn't until some years later it clicked. I was driving a black car. Which was worth seven points when the bored traffic cops were playing "snooker"...
77 in the 70, sh!t that’s not playing fair any more.
The 70 limit “National Speed Limit” was enacted in IIRC 1973 in response to the oil crisis, when if you didn’t have an E-Type or a 911 you weren’t going faster than that anyway. Using modern cars’ performance as a benchmark, we should now have a limit of about 130.
The Germans, as is often the case in late 20th Century motoring, had the right idea to leave the rural stretches of the motorway with no speed limit. The M6 Toll really missed a trick to make a proper British Autobahn.
Although coming up on the toll booths could be a bit tricky at 100 mph...
I saw Farage interviewed on Newsnight last night - I thought he looked noticeably older / more frail than even just 6 months ago at the GE.
Maybe he was tired or whatever - but just on the basis of how he looked I think it must be at least in significant doubt that he will still be leader and fully engaged in politics at the next GE.
He's a bit young to be frail, surely, only on his late 'fifties. He does look a bit weary, though.
He needs Musk's endorsement.
60, 61 this April. 64/5 at the next election, which is another reason to be suspicious of the Nigel for PM fanfic. Being a Westminster party leader, even when that party is Reform, takes it out of anyone.
One of the neat tricks the Brexit genie played was to give Boris, Dom, Rishi and the rest of them what they wanted in a way that they surely regretted. That curse hasn't really touched Sir Nigel of Farageshire... yet.
I'm old enough to remember when Donald Trump was at death's door.
Oh bugger, got a speeding fine for 24 in a 20 zone.
I used to think there was a "10% plus two miles" leeway. Until I got done for 77 mph on the M11.
It wasn't until some years later it clicked. I was driving a black car. Which was worth seven points when the bored traffic cops were playing "snooker"...
Wait, hang on… I assumed I was fine up to 80mph, partly because of the leeway, partly because the speedo overestimates, and partly because no one cares at 80 or below on the motorway.
Now, I have never had any points (including where there are many, many cameras), but are you saying I have been lucky and need to start actually obeying the limit?
I've never been done for speeding above 70 either - only for 56 in a 50 limit bit of the A1 and 70 in a temporary 60 limit on the M1. Not that I'm complaining about the fines, you do the crime, you do the time!
I saw Farage interviewed on Newsnight last night - I thought he looked noticeably older / more frail than even just 6 months ago at the GE.
Maybe he was tired or whatever - but just on the basis of how he looked I think it must be at least in significant doubt that he will still be leader and fully engaged in politics at the next GE.
Don't smoke, kids!
Yep. And he still is, I think. Although it's integral to his brand so it could be an inversion of the more usual politician practice of smoking only in private. Farage could be hiding the fact he's given up. Those publicly puffed fags could be props. The stains on his fingers could be yellow dye. It's just the sort of con these cheap manipulative populists tend to go in for.
It was a motorway and a new beast which I didn't fully appreciate how much of a beast it was.
Sheffield to Manchester via Junction 35a is a stretch of a road where I have been consistently caught between 2005 and 2012. Fucking average speed cameras.
So that's a well timed letter from Mr Russell about the OSA then. Arguing that it's not strong enough as a counterweight to the pressure the other way from Big Tech and other proponents of the "vibe shift".
It was a motorway and a new beast which I didn't fully appreciate how much of a beast it was.
Sheffield to Manchester via Junction 35a is a stretch of a road where I have been consistently caught between 2005 and 2012. Fucking average speed cameras.
Between 2005 and 2012? That's seriously fast, bordering on reckless.
It was a motorway and a new beast which I didn't fully appreciate how much of a beast it was.
Sheffield to Manchester via Junction 35a is a stretch of a road where I have been consistently caught between 2005 and 2012. Fucking average speed cameras.
Wow, that's a helluva overshoot. The fine must have been big.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
So that's a well timed letter from Mr Russell about the OSA then. Arguing that it's not strong enough as a counterweight to the pressure the other way from Big Tech and other proponents of the "vibe shift".
The OSA will do nothing much to the media giants.
It’s the smaller websites that will get pounded. Because they won’t have their lawyers measured in billions of dollars billable.
The real, big issue, with social media, is the algorithms.
It was a motorway and a new beast which I didn't fully appreciate how much of a beast it was.
Sheffield to Manchester via Junction 35a is a stretch of a road where I have been consistently caught between 2005 and 2012. Fucking average speed cameras.
Between 2005 and 2012? That's seriously fast, bordering on reckless.
It was a motorway and a new beast which I didn't fully appreciate how much of a beast it was.
Sheffield to Manchester via Junction 35a is a stretch of a road where I have been consistently caught between 2005 and 2012. Fucking average speed cameras.
Wow, that's a helluva overshoot. The fine must have been big.
I tried to plead poverty but to be honest I was glad I wasn't banned and was happy to pay.
It was a motorway and a new beast which I didn't fully appreciate how much of a beast it was.
Sheffield to Manchester via Junction 35a is a stretch of a road where I have been consistently caught between 2005 and 2012. Fucking average speed cameras.
Wow, that's a helluva overshoot. The fine must have been big.
I tried to plead poverty but to be honest I was glad I wasn't banned and was happy to pay.
You could have argued that your shoes prevented you from feeling the pedals properly.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
I saw Farage interviewed on Newsnight last night - I thought he looked noticeably older / more frail than even just 6 months ago at the GE.
Maybe he was tired or whatever - but just on the basis of how he looked I think it must be at least in significant doubt that he will still be leader and fully engaged in politics at the next GE.
Don't smoke, kids!
Yep. And he still is, I think. Although it's integral to his brand so it could be an inversion of the more usual politician practice of smoking only in private. Farage could be hiding the fact he's given up. Those publicly puffed fags could be props. The stains on his fingers could be yellow dye. It's just the sort of con these cheap manipulative populists tend to go in for.
Harold Wilson and his pipe. Though Mr W aimed at a rather different image.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
I saw Farage interviewed on Newsnight last night - I thought he looked noticeably older / more frail than even just 6 months ago at the GE.
Maybe he was tired or whatever - but just on the basis of how he looked I think it must be at least in significant doubt that he will still be leader and fully engaged in politics at the next GE.
Don't smoke, kids!
Yep. And he still is, I think. Although it's integral to his brand so it could be an inversion of the more usual politician practice of smoking only in private. Farage could be hiding the fact he's given up. Those publicly puffed fags could be props. The stains on his fingers could be yellow dye. It's just the sort of con these cheap manipulative populists tend to go in for.
Harold Wilson and his pipe. Though Mr W aimed at a rather different image.
Yes that's right. Although he was genuinely a man of down to earth tastes in most things.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
Calling the government names or calling for people to be jailed are not crimes.
So that's a well timed letter from Mr Russell about the OSA then. Arguing that it's not strong enough as a counterweight to the pressure the other way from Big Tech and other proponents of the "vibe shift".
The OSA will do nothing much to the media giants.
It’s the smaller websites that will get pounded. Because they won’t have their lawyers measured in billions of dollars billable.
The real, big issue, with social media, is the algorithms.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
One or two other things are important too. Eg a world with absolute free speech but no clean water wouldn't be that great.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
During the 1980s, a non trivial number of Labour MPs applauded terrorism - including the Brighton Bombing. They also applauded and furthered the aims of the USSR.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
Calling the government names or calling for people to be jailed are not crimes.
Well, you're free to carry on whistling, if you want, and what you are saying is fairly preposterous, but I can see I won't change your mind.
Time to enjoy one of those braching winter walks, for me.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
Calling the government names or calling for people to be jailed are not crimes.
Well, you're free to carry on whistling, if you want, and what you are saying is fairly preposterous, but I can see I won't change your mind.
Time to enjoy one of those braching winter walks, for me.
What's preposterous is suggesting that calling the government names is a crime.
It was a motorway and a new beast which I didn't fully appreciate how much of a beast it was.
Sheffield to Manchester via Junction 35a is a stretch of a road where I have been consistently caught between 2005 and 2012. Fucking average speed cameras.
Wow, that's a helluva overshoot. The fine must have been big.
Yes that's Mach 3 isnt it? Woosh. Sheffield to Manchester in 45 seconds.
So that's a well timed letter from Mr Russell about the OSA then. Arguing that it's not strong enough as a counterweight to the pressure the other way from Big Tech and other proponents of the "vibe shift".
The OSA will do nothing much to the media giants.
It’s the smaller websites that will get pounded. Because they won’t have their lawyers measured in billions of dollars billable.
The real, big issue, with social media, is the algorithms.
The big outfits do seem worried though.
They are a bit worried about the legal cost.
Smaller sites are actually shutting down.
Note that the bill includes protections for Mass Media (to be defined by the regulator). This will include the newspapers by default.
So the comment section of the Daily Mail wil be less censored than PB.
Come on now - that is exactly what you want? Right?
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
Calling the government names or calling for people to be jailed are not crimes.
Well, you're free to carry on whistling, if you want, and what you are saying is fairly preposterous, but I can see I won't change your mind.
Time to enjoy one of those braching winter walks, for me.
What's preposterous is suggesting that calling the government names is a crime.
IIRC about 50% of Labour MPs would have been jailed in around 1984, on this basis
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
During the 1980s, a non trivial number of Labour MPs applauded terrorism - including the Brighton Bombing. They also applauded and furthered the aims of the USSR.
Should they have been jailed?
Elon Musk seems to be the one calling for Labour politicians to be jailed.
Ancient history never was my strong point, but didn't Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo?
Waterloo is very very modern history; which starts somewhere around 1400. Unless you are a bit of a traditionalist and think modern history starts with the Arab/Islamic conquests of the 7th century - marking the end of late antiquity.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
During the 1980s, a non trivial number of Labour MPs applauded terrorism - including the Brighton Bombing. They also applauded and furthered the aims of the USSR.
Should they have been jailed?
Elon Musk seems to be the one calling for Labour politicians to be jailed.
For which he is an idiot
Would you have been ok with Ken Livingstone and Corbyn being sent to prison, though?
It was a motorway and a new beast which I didn't fully appreciate how much of a beast it was.
Sheffield to Manchester via Junction 35a is a stretch of a road where I have been consistently caught between 2005 and 2012. Fucking average speed cameras.
Wow, that's a helluva overshoot. The fine must have been big.
Yes that's Mach 3 isnt it? Woosh. Sheffield to Manchester in 45 seconds.
If you must put a new beast through its paces I recommend the M45. While putting my Audi to the test I was passed contemptuously by a Porsche. Is it naïve to ask 'why does the speedo go up to 180?'
Ancient history never was my strong point, but didn't Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo?
Waterloo is very very modern history; which starts somewhere around 1400. Unless you are a bit of a traditionalist and think modern history starts with the Arab/Islamic conquests of the 7th century - marking the end of late antiquity.
True – it was number 1 in 1974 which is relatively recent.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
Calling the government names or calling for people to be jailed are not crimes.
Well, you're free to carry on whistling, if you want, and what you are saying is fairly preposterous, but I can see I won't change your mind.
Time to enjoy one of those braching winter walks, for me.
What's preposterous is suggesting that calling the government names is a crime.
IIRC about 50% of Labour MPs would have been jailed in around 1984, on this basis
How many of this current government's voters would have been jailed in the 14 years prior to the last election on that basis?
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
During the 1980s, a non trivial number of Labour MPs applauded terrorism - including the Brighton Bombing. They also applauded and furthered the aims of the USSR.
Should they have been jailed?
A last dip in, as I'm on my way out, but they were domestic, not overseas. The government has an intertwined problem of domestic, great power and internal infrastructure subversion that no UK government has ever faced.
1980's Labour MP's did not simultaneously have access to the country's intelligence secrets, or nuclear submarine repair facilities.
So that's a well timed letter from Mr Russell about the OSA then. Arguing that it's not strong enough as a counterweight to the pressure the other way from Big Tech and other proponents of the "vibe shift".
The OSA will do nothing much to the media giants.
It’s the smaller websites that will get pounded. Because they won’t have their lawyers measured in billions of dollars billable.
The real, big issue, with social media, is the algorithms.
The big outfits do seem worried though.
They are a bit worried about the legal cost.
Smaller sites are actually shutting down.
Note that the bill includes protections for Mass Media (to be defined by the regulator). This will include the newspapers by default.
So the comment section of the Daily Mail wil be less censored than PB.
Come on now - that is exactly what you want? Right?
I want that in the same way that you want more children and vulnerable adults to come to harm because of vile content on the internet - ie neither is a fair extrapolation of our views on the OSA. Hence why I don't indulge in it.
Ancient history never was my strong point, but didn't Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo?
The suggestion is any other general would have lost Waterloo given the predicament the French forces were in, but Napoleon won a lot of battles other generals wouldn't have won. It's the number and consistency of his victories that gives Napoleon his high score.
Ancient history never was my strong point, but didn't Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo?
Waterloo is very very modern history; which starts somewhere around 1400. Unless you are a bit of a traditionalist and think modern history starts with the Arab/Islamic conquests of the 7th century - marking the end of late antiquity.
[sigh] It was a "Gladiator" (original and best) reference!
"Ancient history never was my strong point, Cassius, but didn't the Barbarians lose the Battle of Carthage?"
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
During the 1980s, a non trivial number of Labour MPs applauded terrorism - including the Brighton Bombing. They also applauded and furthered the aims of the USSR.
Should they have been jailed?
Elon Musk seems to be the one calling for Labour politicians to be jailed.
For which he is an idiot
Would you have been ok with Ken Livingstone and Corbyn being sent to prison, though?
Yes if they committed a crime for which jail time was the usual punishment.
It was a motorway and a new beast which I didn't fully appreciate how much of a beast it was.
Sheffield to Manchester via Junction 35a is a stretch of a road where I have been consistently caught between 2005 and 2012. Fucking average speed cameras.
Between 2005 and 2012? That's seriously fast, bordering on reckless.
Breaking the sound barrier is the cue the cops really needed to do something...
Ancient history never was my strong point, but didn't Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo?
The suggestion is any other general would have lost Waterloo given the predicament the French forces were in, but Napoleon won a lot of battles other generals wouldn't have won. It's the number and consistency of his victories that gives Napoleon his high score.
Other high scorers are julius Caesar and Hannibal. Alexander does well, but he only played in 9 battles. So that’s like a cricketer with a very high batting average but only 9 tests. Napoleon did a lot of battles so his stats are robust.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Although it might be difficult to punish him after he's overthrown the government.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
During the 1980s, a non trivial number of Labour MPs applauded terrorism - including the Brighton Bombing. They also applauded and furthered the aims of the USSR.
Should they have been jailed?
Elon Musk seems to be the one calling for Labour politicians to be jailed.
For which he is an idiot
Would you have been ok with Ken Livingstone and Corbyn being sent to prison, though?
Yes if they committed a crime for which jail time was the usual punishment.
That's how we roll here, isn't it?
Well, under the usual versions of the laws on “subversion and incitement” from The Goode Olde Days*, they would have got decades behind bars. If the Days were especially Olde, it would been Tower Hill and the chop.
*which were never really good, of course. Unless you were 1% of the 1%
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Although it might be difficult to punish him after he's overthrown the government.
Which is not an excuse to punish him before he's committed a crime, or treat insulting the government as a crime.
Ancient history never was my strong point, but didn't Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo?
Waterloo is very very modern history; which starts somewhere around 1400. Unless you are a bit of a traditionalist and think modern history starts with the Arab/Islamic conquests of the 7th century - marking the end of late antiquity.
[sigh] It was a "Gladiator" (original and best) reference!
"Ancient history never was my strong point, Cassius, but didn't the Barbarians lose the Battle of Carthage?"
We're not all as familiar with the Atellan farces as you plebeians are.
Oh bugger, got a speeding fine for 24 in a 20 zone.
I used to think there was a "10% plus two miles" leeway. Until I got done for 77 mph on the M11.
It wasn't until some years later it clicked. I was driving a black car. Which was worth seven points when the bored traffic cops were playing "snooker"...
77 in the 70, sh!t that’s not playing fair any more.
The 70 limit “National Speed Limit” was enacted in IIRC 1973 in response to the oil crisis, when if you didn’t have an E-Type or a 911 you weren’t going faster than that anyway. Using modern cars’ performance as a benchmark, we should now have a limit of about 130.
The Germans, as is often the case in late 20th Century motoring, had the right idea to leave the rural stretches of the motorway with no speed limit. The M6 Toll really missed a trick to make a proper British Autobahn.
Although coming up on the toll booths could be a bit tricky at 100 mph...
How come? In Germany you slow down for the toll gate, go through it as required, then speed up again on the other side.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Although it might be difficult to punish him after he's overthrown the government.
Who is "they" and what are they supposed to "do" precisely?
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It's very far past just free speech. He's constantly briefing the press - the Mail and the FT this week - that he and his advisers are working on overthrowing the government, and in 9 days he will be one of the two most powerful people in the world.
States act in situations like that.
Briefing the press is free speech. You have the right to say whatever you like to the press, even if states dislike it, otherwise there's no free speech at all.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
Carrying on whistling if you want, but one thing he often is is open about his plans. If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
What rot, he's a loudmouth who has very often made "plans" he has not got the ability to deliver.
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Incitement and subversion are. He's called the government terrorists, Starmer to be jailed, and in August promoted civil war.
During the 1980s, a non trivial number of Labour MPs applauded terrorism - including the Brighton Bombing. They also applauded and furthered the aims of the USSR.
Should they have been jailed?
A last dip in, as I'm on my way out, but they were domestic, not overseas. The government has an intertwined problem of domestic, great power and internal infrastructure subversion that no UK government has ever faced.
1980's Labour MP's did not simultaneously have access to the country's intelligence secrets, or nuclear submarine repair facilities.
Actually, from the 60s onward, the intelligence services had significant issues due to the access certain senior MPs had.
We had people encouraging the overthrow of the government by murder. And raising funds and giving public support to those attempting it.
Ancient history never was my strong point, but didn't Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo?
The suggestion is any other general would have lost Waterloo given the predicament the French forces were in, but Napoleon won a lot of battles other generals wouldn't have won. It's the number and consistency of his victories that gives Napoleon his high score.
Other high scorers are julius Caesar and Hannibal. Alexander does well, but he only played in 9 battles. So that’s like a cricketer with a very high batting average but only 9 tests. Napoleon did a lot of battles so his stats are robust.
Also Napoleon seems to have fought a lot of battles where his troops were heavily outnumbered, winning almost all of them.
Ancient history never was my strong point, but didn't Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo?
The suggestion is any other general would have lost Waterloo given the predicament the French forces were in, but Napoleon won a lot of battles other generals wouldn't have won. It's the number and consistency of his victories that gives Napoleon his high score.
Other high scorers are julius Caesar and Hannibal. Alexander does well, but he only played in 9 battles. So that’s like a cricketer with a very high batting average but only 9 tests. Napoleon did a lot of battles so his stats are robust.
Also Napoleon seems to have fought a lot of battles where his troops were heavily outnumbered, winning almost all of them.
Ancient history never was my strong point, but didn't Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo?
Waterloo is very very modern history; which starts somewhere around 1400. Unless you are a bit of a traditionalist and think modern history starts with the Arab/Islamic conquests of the 7th century - marking the end of late antiquity.
[sigh] It was a "Gladiator" (original and best) reference!
"Ancient history never was my strong point, Cassius, but didn't the Barbarians lose the Battle of Carthage?"
We're not all as familiar with the Atellan farces as you plebeians are.
The Carthaginians were not Barbarians, according to the Romans.
Ancient history never was my strong point, but didn't Napoleon lose the Battle of Waterloo?
The suggestion is any other general would have lost Waterloo given the predicament the French forces were in, but Napoleon won a lot of battles other generals wouldn't have won. It's the number and consistency of his victories that gives Napoleon his high score.
Other high scorers are julius Caesar and Hannibal. Alexander does well, but he only played in 9 battles. So that’s like a cricketer with a very high batting average but only 9 tests. Napoleon did a lot of battles so his stats are robust.
Also Napoleon seems to have fought a lot of battles where his troops were heavily outnumbered, winning almost all of them.
Yes, that’s how the methodology works. “Wins against replacement” (WAR).
Comments
It wasn't until some years later it clicked. I was driving a black car. Which was worth seven points when the bored traffic cops were playing "snooker"...
But they're looking at the British Isles of Roman times as a single entity.
In a similar (though not the same) manner, they count the Holy Roman Empire as a single entity.
All the analysis is really showing is that there are some geographical features which make for fairly stable boundaries.
The 70 limit “National Speed Limit” was enacted in IIRC 1973 in response to the oil crisis, when if you didn’t have an E-Type or a 911 you weren’t going faster than that anyway. Using modern cars’ performance as a benchmark, we should now have a limit of about 130.
The Germans, as is often the case in late 20th Century motoring, had the right idea to leave the rural stretches of the motorway with no speed limit. The M6 Toll really missed a trick to make a proper British Autobahn.
It was very Lancashire. The sun was greeted by the woman next to me with an "ey up", and someone commenting approvingly and without apparent irony that it was right on schedule.
Pleasant way to start the day, anyway.
Presumably Dawn was the lady just behind you in the sunset queue?
Maybe he was tired or whatever - but just on the basis of how he looked I think it must be at least in significant doubt that he will still be leader and fully engaged in politics at the next GE.
And no, we haven't got cruise control.
behest.
It often does work, and it's a reasonable place to start. But for some children, being ignored is just a cue to turn up the volume. Because they really, really want the attention.
The evidence that Musk is in the second category is getting hard to... ignore.
He needs Musk's endorsement.
They all had a common theme, on the subject of er… separateness.
The first is the usual cruise control, that keeps the speed at what you set and lets you rest your foot, but you can press to overtake. The second mode is a ‘limit’ function, which stops the car from going above a certain speed but you have to keep using your foot; to override it you have to put your foot right to the floor.
Given that I live somewhere that has grey-coloured cameras every mile or two on most of the roads, I’m quite happy that I’ve only had one ticket in three years and around 60,000 miles with the car.
Seriously speaking, thoug, it's just not possible to ignore it. I have a feeling that's why they're having so many top-level discussions with the French which include defence.
One of the neat tricks the Brexit genie played was to give Boris, Dom, Rishi and the rest of them what they wanted in a way that they surely regretted. That curse hasn't really touched Sir Nigel of Farageshire... yet.
Now, I have never had any points (including where there are many, many cameras), but are you saying I have been lucky and need to start actually obeying the limit?
I know a lot of people who are just zoning out of politics into their own relationships and winter walks.
It's all just too much, for a lot of people at the moment.
92 in a 60.
It was a motorway and a new beast which I didn't fully appreciate how much of a beast it was.
Sheffield to Manchester via Junction 35a is a stretch of a road where I have been consistently caught between 2005 and 2012. Fucking average speed cameras.
That's seriously fast, bordering on reckless.
https://t.co/qM3daHx9oz
Napoleon wins by miles.
Musk is a prat, a wanker, wrong . . . but none of that is illegal. Nor should it be.
What is important is the right to free speech - which does not just go to those we agree with, but those we disagree with too. It does not just go to those whom we deem to be right, it goes to those who are wrong too. It does not just go to those we like, but it goes to those who are prats and wankers too.
It’s the smaller websites that will get pounded. Because they won’t have their lawyers measured in billions of dollars billable.
The real, big issue, with social media, is the algorithms.
States act in situations like that.
If he takes action to overthrow the government then that would be illegal, unless it was following constitutional means such as convincing MPs in Parliament to vote a particular way - but briefing the press is not a crime.
If he says he and his advisors and working on overthrowing the government, he very likely is
We'd have self-driving cars by now if he had delivered everything he said he was going to deliver.
If he commits a crime to overthrow the government he should be punished. Speaking is not a crime.
Mi6 and Mi5 will already be onto it, but scratching their heads.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2806779622825450
In all his defeats Napoleon was heavily outnumbered.
Should they have been jailed?
Time to enjoy one of those braching winter walks, for me.
Smaller sites are actually shutting down.
Note that the bill includes protections for Mass Media (to be defined by the regulator). This will include the newspapers by default.
So the comment section of the Daily Mail wil be less censored than PB.
Come on now - that is exactly what you want? Right?
Would you have been ok with Ken Livingstone and Corbyn being sent to prison, though?
no UK government has ever faced.
1980's Labour MP's did not simultaneously have access to the country's intelligence secrets, or nuclear submarine repair facilities.
"Ancient history never was my strong point, Cassius, but didn't the Barbarians lose the Battle of Carthage?"
That's how we roll here, isn't it?
*which were never really good, of course. Unless you were 1% of the 1%
We had people encouraging the overthrow of the government by murder. And raising funds and giving public support to those attempting it.