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.
He won a lot of battles, but lost the war...
Indeed. But I guess Napoleon had already lost the war before he stepped foot on the field at Waterloo.
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.
They were just murdered or sold into slavery by the Romans when Carthage fell...
The government’s pledge to deliver the highest rate of removals since 2018 has been surpassed, with a surge in returns activity since the election leading to 16,400 people with no right to be in the UK being removed.
I have no idea what the 'right' number should be, but it doesn't sound like very many.
It’s much less than total irregular arrivals, but assuming a majority of those arrivals end up legal, I think it probably counts towards fair chunk of illegal migrants. Possibly even making a cut into the backlog.
There are some easy pickings for government in a few areas of policy. Clearing asylum and immigration backlogs and emptying those hotels is surely one of them. Reducing legal migration numbers is another given the pipeline. Cutting NHS waiting lists post Covid too, and - though maybe harder than some others - upping the rate of housebuilding.
Other things are much harder, notably the economy and fiscal balance. And “stopping the boats”, because that’s an international challenge.
The number of removals is pitiful. I am glad they are climbing, good for Labour for that (really), but this figure only really highlights the disastrously low levels. It's like announcing a doubling of the burglary clear up rate. Good news but still ill-advised.
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?
These days, the roads are so busy that it is barely worth having traffic cops on patrol. Keep your eyes out for people breaking for speed cameras tucked away round corners/on overhead bridges. Mostly motorway traffic bunches up and drives steadily between 80 and 90 in both the middle and outside lanes. As long as you don't exceed 93 (when an automatic ban kicks in) you probably will be OK. Traffic is usually so solid the speed patrols don't get any opportunity to read your number plate/get a reading on your speed. Opportunities to exceed 100 are quite limited just due to the sheer weight of traffic.
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.
I'll chip in more from the cafe here, not not going along with my usual rules of digital detox on strolls, as I think this is such an important issue.
I really can't see that the two scenarios would be that comparable. That would be a simple case of domestic subversion.
What we have here is I would think a screnario a bit more like this
Imagine if we had developed an absolutely intimately nuclear and intelligence relationship with Germany, after World War Ii. We couldn't use our subs or intelligence facilities without it. In the early 1980's, the Internet had developed, and a new populist right German government had shocked everyone by first using it to rise to power, and then threaten its neighbours
The Co President took to using the Internet not only to stir up the extreme right in Brutain, too, but gave notice that he was actively trying to remove then U.K. government. The response from the UK Right would be absolutely frenzied and hysterical, and the tabloids would be launching daily witch-hunts for any German sympathisers,
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%
Yes but did they commit a crime that was a crime when they committed it? This is the info I'm missing.
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.
He won a lot of battles, but lost the war...
Ahem. He won a lot of *land* battles, but lost the naval, and therefore economic, war.
But I suppose the latter was wearing his bicorn hat as head of state.
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.
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.
You needn't worry that Musk will be prosecuted for crimes he hasn't done. Far more likely he won't be prosecuted for ones that he has. Such is his political power now. Power for which he is unaccountable and he knows it. Hence how he's using with total impunity.
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%
Yes but did they commit a crime that was a crime when they committed it? This is the info I'm missing.
Some here seem to want to bring back the good times of “subversion and incitement”.
Just pointing out that once that train gets rollin’ lots of fun will ensue.
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 often wonder whether this "Free Speech" lark is a little overrated.
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...
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.
I'll chip in more from the cafe here, not not going along with my usual rules of digital detox on strolls, as I think this is such an important issue.
I really can't see that the two scenarios would be that comparable. That would be a simple case of domestic subversion.
What we have here is I would think a screnario a bit more like this
Imagine if we had developed an absolutely intimately nuclear and intelligence relationship with Germany, after World War Ii. We couldn't use our subs or intelligence facilities without it. In the early 1980's, the Internet had developed, and a new populist right German government had shocked everyone by first using it to rise to power, and then threaten its neighbours
The Co President took to using the Internet not only to stir up the extreme right in Brutain, too, but gave notice that he was actively trying to remove then U.K. government. The response from the UK Right would be absolutely frenzied and hysterical, and the tabloids would be launching daily witch-hunts for any German sympathisers,
On the overseas angle - the USSR enthusiastically supported every single anti-government group (violent and non-violent) they could find.
This is why, after 1989, much of the hard left collapsed. Their funding had vanished.
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...
Indeed. Bloody dangerous with all those heavy lorries coming up behind at 120 threatening to wipe you out.
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%
Yes but did they commit a crime that was a crime when they committed it? This is the info I'm missing.
Some here seem to want to bring back the good times of “subversion and incitement”.
Just pointing out that once that train gets rollin’ lots of fun will ensue.
Well it's a complex area. Oh how one yearns for ones that aren't.
I can't solve the question but I can frame it.
We'd all agree that Musk should not be prosecuted for being a dick.
We'd all agree he should be for plotting to incite violence in the UK with a view to replacing Keir Starmer with a fascist dictatorship.
So it's about where we are and where he's going and how to call that point where he needs to have his collar felt.
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.
I'll chip in more from the cafe here, not not going along with my usual rules of digital detox on strolls, as I think this is such an important issue.
I really can't see that the two scenarios would be that comparable. That would be a simple case of domestic subversion.
What we have here is I would think a screnario a bit more like this
Imagine if we had developed an absolutely intimately nuclear and intelligence relationship with Germany, after World War Ii. We couldn't use our subs or intelligence facilities without it. In the early 1980's, the Internet had developed, and a new populist right German government had shocked everyone by first using it to rise to power, and then threaten its neighbours
The Co President took to using the Internet not only to stir up the extreme right in Brutain, too, but gave notice that he was actively trying to remove then U.K. government. The response from the UK Right would be absolutely frenzied and hysterical, and the tabloids would be launching daily witch-hunts for any German sympathisers,
On the overseas angle - the USSR enthusiastically supported every single anti-government group (violent and non-violent) they could find.
This is why, after 1989, much of the hard left collapsed. Their funding had vanished.
This included training and arming terrorists.
Something similar will happen after Putin's Russia falls.
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.
Donald Trump waves hello!
Exactly. He's untouchable now.
Only while Donald tolerates him.
It wont last.
It won't, but it's hard to predict exactly how it will implode and the consequences.
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
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.
I'll chip in more from the cafe here, not not going along with my usual rules of digital detox on strolls, as I think this is such an important issue.
I really can't see that the two scenarios would be that comparable. That would be a simple case of domestic subversion.
What we have here is I would think a screnario a bit more like this
Imagine if we had developed an absolutely intimately nuclear and intelligence relationship with Germany, after World War Ii. We couldn't use our subs or intelligence facilities without it. In the early 1980's, the Internet had developed, and a new populist right German government had shocked everyone by first using it to rise to power, and then threaten its neighbours
The Co President took to using the Internet not only to stir up the extreme right in Brutain, too, but gave notice that he was actively trying to remove then U.K. government. The response from the UK Right would be absolutely frenzied and hysterical, and the tabloids would be launching daily witch-hunts for any German sympathisers,
On the overseas angle - the USSR enthusiastically supported every single anti-government group (violent and non-violent) they could find.
This is why, after 1989, much of the hard left collapsed. Their funding had vanished.
This included training and arming terrorists.
Something similar will happen after Putin's Russia falls.
Given what we know, and Putin’s worship of the glory days of the KGB, 100%
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.
I'll chip in more from the cafe here, not not going along with my usual rules of digital detox on strolls, as I think this is such an important issue.
I really can't see that the two scenarios would be that comparable. That would be a simple case of domestic subversion.
What we have here is I would think a screnario a bit more like this
Imagine if we had developed an absolutely intimately nuclear and intelligence relationship with Germany, after World War Ii. We couldn't use our subs or intelligence facilities without it. In the early 1980's, the Internet had developed, and a new populist right German government had shocked everyone by first using it to rise to power, and then threaten its neighbours
The Co President took to using the Internet not only to stir up the extreme right in Brutain, too, but gave notice that he was actively trying to remove then U.K. government. The response from the UK Right would be absolutely frenzied and hysterical, and the tabloids would be launching daily witch-hunts for any German sympathisers,
On the overseas angle - the USSR enthusiastically supported every single anti-government group (violent and non-violent) they could find.
This is why, after 1989, much of the hard left collapsed. Their funding had vanished.
This included training and arming terrorists.
The NuUSSR still support terrorists of course. During Trump's Presidency, they were bribing Taliban $200,000/US or coalition soldier killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, showing how baseless Trump's lies that Putin fears him are:
We're in a new Cold War already, whether we want to be or not. And so far our politicians are still in the spineless denial phase, like when the Attlee government transferred advanced jet technology to the Russians in 1946, despite opposition from the Air Ministry and Chiefs of Staff.
We need to move towards much firmer behaviour asap.
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?
If the "rules" against terrorism were the same then as of now, we would have been within our rights to bomb the Irish quarters of New York , Chicago and Boston, where the IRA were fund raising.
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%
Yes but did they commit a crime that was a crime when they committed it? This is the info I'm missing.
Some here seem to want to bring back the good times of “subversion and incitement”.
Just pointing out that once that train gets rollin’ lots of fun will ensue.
Well it's a complex area. Oh how one yearns for ones that aren't.
I can't solve the question but I can frame it.
We'd all agree that Musk should not be prosecuted for being a dick.
We'd all agree he should be for plotting to incite violence in the UK with a view to replacing Keir Starmer with a fascist dictatorship.
So it's about where we are and where he's going and how to call that point where he needs to have his collar felt.
How do you define plotting?
There’s a reason that sedition fell out of legal favour. Read some history on that.
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.
Donald Trump waves hello!
Exactly. He's untouchable now.
Only while Donald tolerates him.
It wont last.
It won't, but it's hard to predict exactly how it will implode and the consequences.
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
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?
These days, the roads are so busy that it is barely worth having traffic cops on patrol. Keep your eyes out for people breaking for speed cameras tucked away round corners/on overhead bridges. Mostly motorway traffic bunches up and drives steadily between 80 and 90 in both the middle and outside lanes. As long as you don't exceed 93 (when an automatic ban kicks in) you probably will be OK. Traffic is usually so solid the speed patrols don't get any opportunity to read your number plate/get a reading on your speed. Opportunities to exceed 100 are quite limited just due to the sheer weight of traffic.
This is factually inaccurate in several ways, as any dedicated speeder will be able to tell you. To take one example, I've no idea where you got a 93mph automatic ban from. The ACPO guidelines are fixed penalty up to 96 and the resultant court case above there are not an "automatic ban" either. There is no speed that guarantees a ban and you probably aren't looking at one until at least 110 in practice.
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
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.
He won a lot of battles, but lost the war...
Indeed. But I guess Napoleon had already lost the war before he stepped foot on the field at Waterloo.
When reading that Zamoyski biography of Napoleon my overall impression was he was one of the most impressive people in history, but he also never knew when to bloody stop, so everyone ending up opposing him seemed like a given.
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
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.
He won a lot of battles, but lost the war...
Indeed. But I guess Napoleon had already lost the war before he stepped foot on the field at Waterloo.
When reading that Zamoyski biography of Napoleon my overall impression was he was one of the most impressive people in history, but he also never knew when to bloody stop, so everyone ending up opposing him seemed like a given.
A lot of successful people don't know when to stop, and therefore end up being unsuccessful people.
Hitler, for example. Or Putin. Or Sunak. Or @malcolmg.
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
V good stunt. Maybe TSE came up with the idea.....
That doesn't seem likely. One, the restaurant will still serve them with pineapple pizzas and two, there's no suggestion that any buyers will be brutally tortured to death by listening to a post on the virtues of AV on loop.
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
The bulk of their riches are tied up in the housing market, so the solution is to stop pursuing policies that prop it up: end cheap money and mass immigration.
Rachel Reeves is delivering on both counts by making borrowing more expensive and taxing jobs.
"Kemi, unfortunately, has bought into her own mythology. Her self-image far outstrips her actual abilities, a dangerous delusion that has led her to miscalculate time and again. This overinflated sense of self is perhaps best captured by her childhood friend Taiwo Togun, who said Kemi’s mindset is: “I’m probably the best thing in the room, you just don’t realise it, and you will realise it sooner or later.” "
| I suspect this forthrightness stems from her father, Femi Adegoke, who also dabbled in political activism. Femi’s nickname in Yoruba, by the way, was “obstinacy”. "
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
Surely when assessing Generalship one must take into consideration the decisiveness of the battle? Until the critical point a successful General avoids battle, preserves their forces, and orchestrates a more decisive battle. In particular aims to have the military advantage in that battle.
General Giap didn't have many victories in the field, but the ones he did win ended wars: Dien Bien Phu and the 1975 Southern campaign. Arguably Tet was a strategic success too, as destroyed American backing for their war.
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
"Kemi, unfortunately, has bought into her own mythology. Her self-image far outstrips her actual abilities, a dangerous delusion that has led her to miscalculate time and again. This overinflated sense of self is perhaps best captured by her childhood friend Taiwo Togun, who said Kemi’s mindset is: “I’m probably the best thing in the room, you just don’t realise it, and you will realise it sooner or later.” "
| I suspect this forthrightness stems from her father, Femi Adegoke, who also dabbled in political activism. Femi’s nickname in Yoruba, by the way, was “obstinacy”. "
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).
It’s a pretty dodgy methodology, though. One also has to consider was aims, and the outcome. Had Napoleon finally been defeated defending France, then fair enough, but the guy was just an inveterate warmonger and would-be tyrant.
He even out-Nelsoned Nelson with his final words in battle (a victory more crushing than Trafalgar): "The war is at its height – wear my armor and beat my war drums. Do not announce my death."
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
Lots of waffle and then says "The Telegraph understands that Labour ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) are continuing some of the work, looking at their own reforms to PIP."
Looking at? Continuing "some" of the work? Looking into own reforms????
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
It ultimately comes down to a desire to live beyond means.
Its something governments are happy to pander to but the desire is too deeply intrinsic among too many people.
We're not going to get one though. The scale of reform required to enable the country to live within its means - essentially, redistribution on a massive scale, or the dismantling of much of the welfare state - is going to be so wildly unpopular that nobody proposing it will be able to get elected. The political class and the electorate both indulge fantasy and wishful thinking, each feeding off the other, because it's far easier and less frightening than dealing with the very deep hole in which we find ourselves.
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
It ultimately comes down to a desire to live beyond means.
Its something governments are happy to pander to but the desire is too deeply intrinsic among too many people.
The Germans were living beyond their means in 1950, but were very far from doing so in 1990.
This wasn't only because of debt cancellation, but mainly because of vastly better investment, training, social and educational policies.
I will entertain no other discussion in this matter.
He was a pretty good organiser, but I doubt he even faced odds like this: The Japanese fleet of approximately 333 ships (133 warships, at least 200 logistical support ships) entered Myeongnyang Strait in groups. The Japanese ships that made it through were met by 13 Joseon warships…
We’ve got Wilson at the moment, we need a new Callaghan first.
Sergeant Wilson maybe, but certainly not Harold. Harold was one of our more impressive PMs in my lifetime. Don't forget he trumped Trump fifty years before Trump. Winner, loser, winner, then in Wilson's case almost replaced by Louis Mountbatten in a coup. A nice omen for us re; Trump.
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
Surely when assessing Generalship one must take into consideration the decisiveness of the battle? Until the critical point a successful General avoids battle, preserves their forces, and orchestrates a more decisive battle. In particular aims to have the military advantage in that battle.
General Giap didn't have many victories in the field, but the ones he did win ended wars: Dien Bien Phu and the 1975 Southern campaign. Arguably Tet was a strategic success too, as destroyed American backing for their war.
He wouldn't score well in this guys metric.
The old comment about winning every battle but losing the war comes to mind, as well.
I also recall one historian who tried to that the Duke of Wellington wasn’t a good general because, in Spain, he relied on his enemies attacking him uphill….
I will entertain no other discussion in this matter.
I am surprised you go for Eisenhower, who liberated the French, ahead of Wellington and Henry V who destroyed them.
As bad as the French are they aren't Nazis.
Had D-Day failed, like Dieppe, I think Western Europe would have either been occupied by the Russians, or nukes would have been dropped on it in the summer of 1945.
Surely when assessing Generalship one must take into consideration the decisiveness of the battle? Until the critical point a successful General avoids battle, preserves their forces, and orchestrates a more decisive battle. In particular aims to have the military advantage in that battle.
General Giap didn't have many victories in the field, but the ones he did win ended wars: Dien Bien Phu and the 1975 Southern campaign. Arguably Tet was a strategic success too, as destroyed American backing for their war.
He wouldn't score well in this guys metric.
The old comment about winning every battle but losing the war comes to mind, as well.
I also recall one historian who tried to that the Duke of Wellington wasn’t a good general because, in Spain, he relied on his enemies attacking him uphill….
Yes, which is why Hannibal is a loser, ditto the Japanese in WWII despite some stunning early successes.
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
It is not just us. Most rich world countries face sluggish growth, and are living beyond their means.
Now, compared to most people, in most times, we’ve all drawn first prize in the lottery of life.
We’ve got Wilson at the moment, we need a new Callaghan first.
Sergeant Wilson maybe, but certainly not Harold. Harold was one of our more impressive PMs in my lifetime. Don't forget he trumped Trump fifty years before Trump. Winner, loser, winner, then in Wilson's case almost replaced by Louis Mountbatten in a coup. A nice omen for us re; Trump.
Wilson stayed out of Vietnam, but he didn't have to contend with Nixon trying to overthrow him himself.
Best news ever, this place should get a Michelin star.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
V good stunt. Maybe TSE came up with the idea.....
That doesn't seem likely. One, the restaurant will still serve them with pineapple pizzas and two, there's no suggestion that any buyers will be brutally tortured to death by listening to a post on the virtues of AV on loop.
"So, Starmer and Reeves must bear the impact of crashing into the brick wall of [an emergency Budget on] 26 March together. Between them, they have failed to give themselves enough room to avoid the collision. The only thing that can save them is some good luck on the economy that brings the OBR forecast back into line with Reeves’s fiscal rules in time."
I've come to the conclusion that this and every future Government is going to fail, until something effective is done about both economic inequality and the dependency ratio. The measures required, which will essentially amount to stripping wealthy elderly people and their heirs of a large chunk of their riches, and telling everyone under the age of about fifty that they will have to keep working into their seventies before they can claim the state pension, are going to be so unpopular that the country will have to keep circling the plughole until it falls into some major systemic crisis that will force ministers to act.
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
If it’s just us, and not other European countries that need such drastic treatment, we would need to look at the reasons why. Destroying manufacturing, austerity, selling the family silver. Perhaps then, people would see the damage that Thatcher, Brown and Osborne inflicted on us.
It ultimately comes down to a desire to live beyond means.
Its something governments are happy to pander to but the desire is too deeply intrinsic among too many people.
There’s actually tons of manufacturing. It’s just not the “half naked men pouring molten steel” type stuff.
The belief that there is no manufacturing is widespread in politics, though.
Mind you, if you tell people that manufacturing was only 32% of the economy in 1970, they don’t believe you….
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.
How exactly does it demolish Out of Africa?
That sounds an odd claim. GT is dated to 10,000 BC, whilst the OOA theory is based around a timespan 100-200,000 years ago. So the two sit very well together.
OOA theory may be wrong - in outline and especially in detail - but I cannot see how the existence of GT disproves it.
Yes, I thought the startling thing about GT was more around the emergence of complex societies needed (or what was presumed to be needed) to construct remarkable, er, constructions, so early on, not where it was. It's not like it's a million miles from other cradles of civilization (or Africa for that matter).
The truly remarkable thing about Tas Tapeler is that what we are unearthing may be the ENDpoint of a great civilisation stretching back thousands of years before this. Which means agriculture might have killed it off?
We just dunno. That would - inter alia - mean Graham Hancock is at least partly right (even if his worldwide comet theories are “a stretch”) which would annoy and destroy a lot of orthodox science
I agree that Gobekli does little to challenge the Out of Africa theory, tho that does now face challenges of its own with all sorts of anomalous hominids now springing up in Asia/indonesia etc
Comments
I really can't see that the two scenarios would be that comparable. That would be a simple case of domestic subversion.
What we have here is I would think a screnario a bit more like this
Imagine if we had developed an absolutely intimately nuclear and intelligence relationship with Germany, after World War Ii. We couldn't use our subs or intelligence facilities without it. In the early 1980's, the Internet had developed, and a new populist right German government had shocked everyone by first using it to rise to power, and then threaten its neighbours
The Co President took to using the Internet not only to stir up the extreme right in Brutain, too, but gave notice that he was actively trying to remove then U.K. government. The response from the UK Right would be absolutely frenzied and hysterical, and the tabloids would be launching daily witch-hunts for any German sympathisers,
But I suppose the latter was wearing his bicorn hat as head of state.
Note that he was suspended by Labour in the summer, don't think this is related though.
Not sure how he ever got into the whips office or became a minister.
Just pointing out that once that train gets rollin’ lots of fun will ensue.
If Musk considers Yaxley-Lennon to be a moderate the Labour Party are indeed far left.
I would be fascinated to read @williamglenn 's take.
This is why, after 1989, much of the hard left collapsed. Their funding had vanished.
This included training and arming terrorists.
I can't solve the question but I can frame it.
We'd all agree that Musk should not be prosecuted for being a dick.
We'd all agree he should be for plotting to incite violence in the UK with a view to replacing Keir Starmer with a fascist dictatorship.
So it's about where we are and where he's going and how to call that point where he needs to have his collar felt.
It wont last.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rachel-reeves-emergency-budget-uk-economy-fiscal-rules-john-major-labour-party-b2677853.html
https://kyivindependent.com/russia-paid-afghan-militants-200-000-per-killed-us-coalition-soldier-media-investigation-says/
We're in a new Cold War already, whether we want to be or not. And so far our politicians are still in the spineless denial phase, like when the Attlee government transferred advanced jet technology to the Russians in 1946, despite opposition from the Air Ministry and Chiefs of Staff.
We need to move towards much firmer behaviour asap.
There’s a reason that sedition fell out of legal favour. Read some history on that.
Trendy pizzeria charges £100 for a Hawaiian to discourage customers from divisive topping
‘Pineapple on pizza? Never,’ says head chef of Norwich restaurant weighing in on age-old row
It is arguably the most divisive culinary combination.
Topping the traditional Italian favourite with pineapple now comes with a hefty price tag at one trendy pizzeria.
Lupa Pizza, in Norwich, is charging customers £100 for their Hawaiian pizza on the food delivery service, Deliveroo, because they disapprove of the combination so strongly.
The pizzeria, where the average base costs £11.70, has nailed its culinary colours to the mast, telling customers: “Yeah, for £100 you can have it. Order the champagne too! Go on you Monster!”
Francis Woolf, the co-owner of Lupa Pizza, told the Norwich Evening News: “I absolutely loathe pineapple on a pizza.”
It is a sentiment shared by Quin Jianoran, the head chef, who added: “I love a piña colada, but pineapple on pizza? Never. I’d rather put a bloody strawberry on one than that tropical menace.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/11/lupa-pizza-pineapple-hawaiian-gordon-ramsey-justin-trudeau/
"We can't rely on our allies to stay non-communist states. We should let them join us.
Britain, for example."
https://x.com/BrentMi62443170/status/1878129595095912907
An unsustainable rise in gilt yields as foreign investors conclude that we are a basket case seems the most likely scenario, although the collapse of the healthcare system leading to mass avoidable fatalities might also do it. We shall see.
Which state of the Union address do you expect the senate to assassinate him at?
non-existent welfare state, and a Republic with a capital far away.
By far the majority of British people don"t want these things, though.
Apart from Arsenal v Manchester United tomorrow
Hitler, for example. Or Putin. Or Sunak. Or @malcolmg.
Rachel Reeves is delivering on both counts by making borrowing more expensive and taxing jobs.
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1878135674215264389?t=PR1QwYdXW-wbQYHUQr_hZQ&s=19
NEW: Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede says he is ready to speak with Donald Trump as he calls for independence from Denmark.
Egede said his people didn’t want to be Americans but said it was ultimately up to them to decide their future.
“We are ready to talk [with Trump].”
“We don’t want to be Danes. We don’t want to be Americans. We want to be Greenlandic… of course it’s the Greenlandic people who decide their future.”
"Kemi, unfortunately, has bought into her own mythology. Her self-image far outstrips her actual abilities, a dangerous delusion that has led her to miscalculate time and again. This overinflated sense of self is perhaps best captured by her childhood friend Taiwo Togun, who said Kemi’s mindset is: “I’m probably the best thing in the room, you just don’t realise it, and you will realise it sooner or later.” "
| I suspect this forthrightness stems from her father, Femi Adegoke, who also dabbled in political activism. Femi’s nickname in Yoruba, by the way, was “obstinacy”. "
https://thecritic.co.uk/kemis-achilles-heel/
Austerity Reeves hates disabled people because they dont add to the profits of millionaire donors who fund the Red Tories
Well done SKS fans
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1877848020252864719
@zarahsultana
·
4h
Austerity has been discredited & 330,000+ deaths prove its deadly impact.
Yet benefit cuts are being briefed & disabled people are again made to pay the price for “calming” the markets.
Austerity with a red rosette is still austerity.
This isn’t the “change” people voted for.
Replace Starmer with Yaxley-Lennon?
General Giap didn't have many victories in the field, but the ones he did win ended wars: Dien Bien Phu and the 1975 Southern campaign. Arguably Tet was a strategic success too, as destroyed American backing for their war.
He wouldn't score well in this guys metric.
One also has to consider was aims, and the outcome. Had Napoleon finally been defeated defending France, then fair enough, but the guy was just an inveterate warmonger and would-be tyrant.
The IMO greatest exponent of military art was the legendary general and admiral, Yi Sun-sin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin#Military_career
He even out-Nelsoned Nelson with his final words in battle (a victory more crushing than Trafalgar):
"The war is at its height – wear my armor and beat my war drums. Do not announce my death."
Lots of waffle and then says "The Telegraph understands that Labour ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) are continuing some of the work, looking at their own reforms to PIP."
Looking at? Continuing "some" of the work? Looking into own reforms????
Most liked:
Pepperoni 65%
Sausage 56%
Mushroom 54%
Extra cheese 52%
Onions 48%
Most disliked:
Anchovy 61%
Aubergine 52%
Artichoke 44%
Broccoli 39%
Pineapple 35%
Caveat: poll was carried out Stateside!
https://today.yougov.com/consumer/articles/34075-most-liked-disliked-pizza-toppings-poll-data?redirect_from=/topics/consumer/articles-reports/2021/02/08/most-liked-disliked-pizza-toppings-poll-data
The Tories love to Cosplay Thatcherism, but rarely understand it, hence Truss.
We probably need a new Atlee-Macilmillan. Somehow combined with Nelson.
D-Day is the greatest feat in human history.
I will entertain no other discussion in this matter.
Its something governments are happy to pander to but the desire is too deeply intrinsic among too many people.
We’re still trying to get to grips with the mistakes she made.
This wasn't only because of debt cancellation, but mainly because of vastly better investment, training, social and educational policies.
You can't say that about Starmer.
Wilson was also an economics don.
Seems a bit of a random statement on a bitterly cold January night.
The Japanese fleet of approximately 333 ships (133 warships, at least 200 logistical support ships) entered Myeongnyang Strait in groups. The Japanese ships that made it through were met by 13 Joseon warships…
I also recall one historian who tried to that the Duke of Wellington wasn’t a good general because, in Spain, he relied on his enemies attacking him uphill….
Had D-Day failed, like Dieppe, I think Western Europe would have either been occupied by the Russians, or nukes would have been dropped on it in the summer of 1945.
Now, compared to most people, in most times, we’ve all drawn first prize in the lottery of life.
I feel for Starmer, somewhat.
Keep Calmer, Vote Jenrick.
The belief that there is no manufacturing is widespread in politics, though.
Mind you, if you tell people that manufacturing was only 32% of the economy in 1970, they don’t believe you….
We just dunno. That would - inter alia - mean Graham Hancock is at least partly right (even if his worldwide comet theories are “a stretch”) which would annoy and destroy a lot of orthodox science
I agree that Gobekli does little to challenge the Out of Africa theory, tho that does now face challenges of its own with all sorts of anomalous hominids now springing up in Asia/indonesia etc