I see Leon has moved on to slurring Holocaust educators, but I can’t decide if that’s more or less ridiculous than Sandpit claiming Jan 6 was mostly peaceful.
I’m not slurring him, I am talking about the person you quoted, Julie Gray, the PARTNER (not the Holocaust survivor), it turns out this person you quote who described Musk as “a sociopath” with “no interest in the Holocaust” actually makes money by
WORKING CLOSELY WITH GAMING PIONEERS TO DO DISPLAYS ABOUT DEATH CAMPS
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
Given the degree of damage being inflicted upon both the military power and the military prestige of Russia, the expenditure on the part of the UK government looks like the bargain of the century.
Why?
Russia has lost its frontline and best military equipment and soldiers. They are fighting with the second line now - large quantities of reworked ancient kit. The stockpiles of ancient tanks, APCs and SPGs has been massively depleted as well. The airforce is massively reduced as well. Production of new weapons is a trickle, and they are relying on North Korea for support. The Russian navy has taken massive losses as well.
On the international arms market, their reputation has completely collapsed. Russian tanks are associated with turret tossing.
All for the "cost", to the UK (among the rest), of mostly near time expired munitions and some training.
Putin would now, definitely, lose a war against... Poland.
So what? What have the military fortunes of a country which has never stood a serious chance of conventional invasion of the UK got to do with us that makes it worth denuding our own forces of military hardware and ammunition, to say nothing of just bunging £600mill at them to spend on other country's munitions without even passing through our own defence industry. The only deadly threat from Russia to the UK that I can perceive is if they start firing missiles at us, and I've seen precisely squat on defending against that possibility from our Government. And how does undermining Russia's military capability using Ukraine as the mechanism, as clever as that might be, help us with the strategic threat of China? The threat of Islamic radicalism? You know - actual issues?
As for putting "cost" in inverted commas, you must know that's utterly ludicrous. AI (fact checking is necessary) says this about the UK's support:
The UK Government has committed significant funds to support Ukraine’s war effort. As of the latest updates, the UK has provided or pledged around £12.8 billion in military aid. Additionally, the UK has agreed to provide an unprecedented $5 billion (£4 billion) in guarantees to enable Ukraine to access World Bank lending. More recently, the UK announced an extra £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, bringing the total military support to over £15 billion. This includes both direct financial aid and guarantees to support Ukraine’s recovery and defense (sic).
If it's anything like that, whilst the UK Government makes a mere £2.8bn from freezing grannies, it is a total farce, and deserves more debate than being placed in inverted commas and dismissed as 'some training and clapped out equipment' ffs.
It's not about the money, though, be honest. £12.8bn is about 0.3% of UK public expenditure over the period.
Your real grievance is that we've deprived Putin's Russia of their rightful victory in Ukraine.
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
After 60 most married couples go to bed with cocoa and a book anyway, probably what made the Court come to its judgement
The ruling is not relevant to the UK as the UK has no fault divorces
Which is surely the point. No one can be required to have sex against their wishes but withholding sex is an act with consequences and can be a reason for bringing a marriage to an end.
And we don't drink cocoa, especially in bed.
The wife of a friend of mine decided she no longer wanted sex after their second child was born. She was about 40, he maybe 42 - this was nearly 20 years ago, they’ve not had sex since
He’s quite highly sexed, and desperately wanted sex. In the end he broached the idea of him quietly finding solace elsewhere and she said, if you do that I will divorce you and take the kids, the house, etc
This seemed to me then, seems to me now, quite exceptionally cruel and unfair. He tolerated it because he “loved her”.
There is a lot of unseen misery in many marriages
That sounds rough. No disrespect to your mate, but maybe he was doing it wrong? Presumably if she was enjoying it she wouldn't have wanted to stop. Did they try counseling? Problems in a couple's sex life often reflect broader problems, a failure to communicate etc.
I recall seeing a quote from a writer who ran a problem page for the middle aged that one of her problems was keeping the variety of the tales she picked, as 95% of her correspondence from men was on the specific problem that their wives had shut up shop.
On topic, I agree with each of TSE's points, however, there's also a great big But.
Point 1: "[TSE's] expectation is that the Republican nominee in 2028 will be whomever Donald Trump anoints as his successor". Yes, assuming he's around (a not-insignificant actuarial risk for the oldest-ever president at inauguration), his primary interest will be in protecting himself, which means he will want someone still personally loyal.
Point 2: "[TSE] think[s] he’ll try and it keep within the family". Certainly, Trump operates court politics and trusts blood over money, and money over party. I agree his first preference will be family. Mafia, innit?
Point 3: "which brings us to Donald Trump, Jr.". Or perhaps back to him because who else is there? Eric is, to put it politely, not up to it. Ivanka was trialled during Trump-45 and exposed as wanting. Barron is too young. Tiffany is not being pushed forward. Kushner seems uninterested. But Don has been loyally pushing his dad's line and is, at the moment, the only plausible family successor. Whether he has the skills to be anything other than his father's mouthpiece is another question: being a candidate is more than being a proxy.
Point 4: "so you may wish to take the 36s on Betfair on him winning the 2028 election". Yes. Remember, this is less than a 3% implied chance. Backing it does not mean it's going to happen or is even likely to happen; just that the chances of it not happening are less than 97%. There are lots of ways Trump-48 could go wrong; the question is about putting numbers to them.
And now the Big But, which we touched on earlier. This is Succession and about who best protects Trump's interests. If he doesn't feel any of his children or relations are up to it, he will go elsewhere, whatever his first instincts and preference. That may be Vance but it also may not be, given Trump's personal disloyalty and capriciousness. 3.8 is way too short to be value.
One other point: Donald Trump snr isn't listed in the odds. I think that's a mistake. If there's one person above all others Trump trusts, it's himself. Yes, the 22nd Amendment is supposed to bar him from a third term but there's no absolute guarantee that it'll still be in place come 2028 or, if it is, that the courts would enforce it given the rate at which Trump is undermining democracy and the rule of law. There are also loopholes to the 22nd that could enable Trump to run a fourth time legitimately. Again, this isn't to say it's the most likely thing to happen but it is less than the 999/1 shot it'd need to be to get a listing.
@david_herdson Very good post, and I agree with your points, particularly the last one.
I remember suggesting on here a few months ago that Trump would run in 2028 and being shot down for it, but I have no idea why 8 years on from his first presidency, people still expect norms and the rule of law to be upheld.
As you say, the courts can find an excuse if they want to - and a very Republican leaning Supreme Court at that!
You can easily imagine an argument being spun like “Well, if the people don’t want him to run again, they can vote for his opponent. Let the people decide!”
Also, Rep. Andy Ogles has literally just introduced a constitutional amendment to allow Trump to run for a Third Term - hilariously with a specific clause aimed at stopping Barack Obama from running again.
Of course this amendment likely won’t go anyway but I don’t know why people just think Trump senior won’t have a crack at doing this if he can. If they listed it on the Exchange / Smarkets I’d be all over it right now, even as a trading bet.
Nah. There’ll be an election in 2028, and Trump will not be top of the ticket.
The democratic infrastructure of the US will have been weakened, but it will still function. Whether it functions in a way that we can describe the vote as being on a level playing field, or whether it operates in a way where the playing field is slightly skewed, it is difficult to say at this point. There is a lot of damage that can be done in the next few years.
I don’t believe Trump can overturn the 22 Amendment. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t try some constitutional hijinks like testing the vice president route, or essentially running with a surrogate (the Putin/Medvedev gambit).
Even during 2024's campaign, Trump suffered some ‘Biden moments’ on stage, which might have lost him the election were it not for Biden's foot being obviously deeper in the grave. I doubt Trump will be up to a third run. Trump as the Elon Musk to one of his children might be the closest he gets, and I'm not sure any of them want it (see start of thread).
Indeed.
The man is 78 too, and given what we know of his diet, hardly the paragon of healthy living.
ACTUALLY - Trump is on a health kick apparently
I read it on X so it must be true. He’s dropped about 30 pounds (ozempic methinks) and Melania has got him to kick the fast food in favour of salads etc
Plus, he’s never been a smoker or a drinker
If you can get beyond the orange masque he doesn’t look that bad for a 78 year old. So anyone hoping the burgers will topple him might be outa luck
I'm not sure if 30lb off about 25 stone amounts to that much.
The acid test is whether Trump has published his medical records - as is customary for POTUSes. He put as much shenanigans into avoiding doing that as he did in avoiding facing the music for his many crimes - including staging raids on Doctors offices to confiscate his records and publishing "medical testimonies" from unqualified individuals.
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
After 60 most married couples go to bed with cocoa and a book anyway, probably what made the Court come to its judgement
The ruling is not relevant to the UK as the UK has no fault divorces
Which is surely the point. No one can be required to have sex against their wishes but withholding sex is an act with consequences and can be a reason for bringing a marriage to an end.
And we don't drink cocoa, especially in bed.
The wife of a friend of mine decided she no longer wanted sex after their second child was born. She was about 40, he maybe 42 - this was nearly 20 years ago, they’ve not had sex since
He’s quite highly sexed, and desperately wanted sex. In the end he broached the idea of him quietly finding solace elsewhere and she said, if you do that I will divorce you and take the kids, the house, etc
This seemed to me then, seems to me now, quite exceptionally cruel and unfair. He tolerated it because he “loved her”.
There is a lot of unseen misery in many marriages
That sounds rough. No disrespect to your mate, but maybe he was doing it wrong? Presumably if she was enjoying it she wouldn't have wanted to stop. Did they try counseling? Problems in a couple's sex life often reflect broader problems, a failure to communicate etc.
My guess - it is only a guess, of course - is that she’s not particularly sexual. Is all. And so as soon as she had the requisite pair of kids, she turned off the tap. Which is fine, natch. She showed and shows no sign of wanting sex from anyone else
But to then condemn her husband to a life without sex, with a threat of divorce, feels cruel - to me
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
After 60 most married couples go to bed with cocoa and a book anyway, probably what made the Court come to its judgement
The ruling is not relevant to the UK as the UK has no fault divorces
Which is surely the point. No one can be required to have sex against their wishes but withholding sex is an act with consequences and can be a reason for bringing a marriage to an end.
And we don't drink cocoa, especially in bed.
The wife of a friend of mine decided she no longer wanted sex after their second child was born. She was about 40, he maybe 42 - this was nearly 20 years ago, they’ve not had sex since
He’s quite highly sexed, and desperately wanted sex. In the end he broached the idea of him quietly finding solace elsewhere and she said, if you do that I will divorce you and take the kids, the house, etc
This seemed to me then, seems to me now, quite exceptionally cruel and unfair. He tolerated it because he “loved her”.
There is a lot of unseen misery in many marriages
That sounds rough. No disrespect to your mate, but maybe he was doing it wrong? Presumably if she was enjoying it she wouldn't have wanted to stop. Did they try counseling? Problems in a couple's sex life often reflect broader problems, a failure to communicate etc.
If the motivation is control, the trade off between forgoing something a wife enjoyed compared to her need to exert the ultimate power over their partner would be compelling to her. I suppose it works the other way around too, and the narcissistic husband withdraws benefits from his wife. That is how narcissists work.
I doubt the husband in this case, is inadequate in the sack, although that suggestion by the narcissistic partner would be the ultimate gas lighting put-down win, but it does look like this guy has allowed himself to be a doormat. I am not criticising him, his reasons for capitulation might be perfectly valid.
This week (only six months into a new parliament) has given great of ammunition for those who would prefer a reduced number of MPs.
Earlier we had a new LD MP demanding that more women footballers appeared on birthday cards.
We now have this gem from another obviously bored Labour MP, who has too much thinking time to himself:
Question Asked by Chris Evans
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, whether she plans to amend the list of protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 to include hair colour.
Answer Answered by Anneliese Dodds
on 23 January 2025
The Government has no such plans.
That's good - making fun of gingers is the last allowable prejudice*
Of slightly niche interest, but I was surprised to find out that it is seven years today since Mark E Smith died. It doesn't feel like it. Anyway, his Wikipedia page is interesting (everything about him is interesting) - to keep this vaguely related to this site, these are his political views, which could stand as a proxy for the views of much of Labour's traditional base over the last 50 years:
Originally a Labour supporter, Smith left the party during the Falklands War (which he supported), then became further disillusioned with Labour during the Tony Blair era.[67] In the 1997 election, he voted for the Conservative Party in opposition to Blair.[68] Asked during a mid-1980s interview with Smash Hits as to what policies he would adopt if he became Prime Minister, he said: "I'd halve the price of cigarettes, double the tax on health food, then I'd declare war on France."[69] In a 2012 interview, Smith jokingly stated he would put the Queen in charge of Britain when asked the same question.[70] Smith also expressed support for the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Although a longstanding member of the Musicians Union, he criticised their political outlook, saying, "all they say is vote Corbyn and stay in the European Union.
Labour also supported the Falklands War. I've tried to like The Fall over the years but gave up.
I know. Maybe despite the position of the Labour front bench - which he surely couldn't have had a problem with - he got irritated by sharing a party with anti-war types? Or maybe just characteristic MES capriciousness. In any case, he wasn't necessarily alone - John O Farrell's autobiography discusses tensions around this period between anti-war middle class Labourites and pro-war working class Labourites.
Anyway, the Fall - not everyone's cup of tea, but those who like them really like them. The opposite of, say, Feeder.
This week (only six months into a new parliament) has given great of ammunition for those who would prefer a reduced number of MPs.
Earlier we had a new LD MP demanding that more women footballers appeared on birthday cards.
We now have this gem from another obviously bored Labour MP, who has too much thinking time to himself:
Question Asked by Chris Evans
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, whether she plans to amend the list of protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 to include hair colour.
Answer Answered by Anneliese Dodds
on 23 January 2025
The Government has no such plans.
That's good - making fun of gingers is the last allowable prejudice*
*I know, thin ice etc
Don't fret, Trump et al are re-introducing plenty of allowable prejudices.
This week (only six months into a new parliament) has given great of ammunition for those who would prefer a reduced number of MPs.
Earlier we had a new LD MP demanding that more women footballers appeared on birthday cards.
We now have this gem from another obviously bored Labour MP, who has too much thinking time to himself:
Question Asked by Chris Evans
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, whether she plans to amend the list of protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 to include hair colour.
Answer Answered by Anneliese Dodds
on 23 January 2025
The Government has no such plans.
That's good - making fun of gingers is the last allowable prejudice*
*I know, thin ice etc
This is an occasional reminder that one of our mods is of the Ginger persuasion. And a fine article-publishing person he is too... 😎
"Zelenskyy was fighting a much bigger entity, much bigger, much more powerful," Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "He shouldn’t have done that, because we could have made a deal."
[…]
"I could have made that deal so easily, and Zelenskyy decided that 'I want to fight,'" Trump said.
[…]
Trump has taken a markedly different approach, saying in the Fox News interview that Zelenskyy is "no angel," adding that he "shouldn't have allowed this war to happen."
Of slightly niche interest, but I was surprised to find out that it is seven years today since Mark E Smith died. It doesn't feel like it. Anyway, his Wikipedia page is interesting (everything about him is interesting) - to keep this vaguely related to this site, these are his political views, which could stand as a proxy for the views of much of Labour's traditional base over the last 50 years:
Originally a Labour supporter, Smith left the party during the Falklands War (which he supported), then became further disillusioned with Labour during the Tony Blair era.[67] In the 1997 election, he voted for the Conservative Party in opposition to Blair.[68] Asked during a mid-1980s interview with Smash Hits as to what policies he would adopt if he became Prime Minister, he said: "I'd halve the price of cigarettes, double the tax on health food, then I'd declare war on France."[69] In a 2012 interview, Smith jokingly stated he would put the Queen in charge of Britain when asked the same question.[70] Smith also expressed support for the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Although a longstanding member of the Musicians Union, he criticised their political outlook, saying, "all they say is vote Corbyn and stay in the European Union.
This week (only six months into a new parliament) has given great of ammunition for those who would prefer a reduced number of MPs.
Earlier we had a new LD MP demanding that more women footballers appeared on birthday cards.
We now have this gem from another obviously bored Labour MP, who has too much thinking time to himself:
Question Asked by Chris Evans
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, whether she plans to amend the list of protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 to include hair colour.
Answer Answered by Anneliese Dodds
on 23 January 2025
The Government has no such plans.
That's good - making fun of gingers is the last allowable prejudice*
*I know, thin ice etc
This is an occasional reminder that one of our mods is of the Ginger persuasion. And a fine article-publishing person he is too... 😎
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
After 60 most married couples go to bed with cocoa and a book anyway, probably what made the Court come to its judgement
The ruling is not relevant to the UK as the UK has no fault divorces
Which is surely the point. No one can be required to have sex against their wishes but withholding sex is an act with consequences and can be a reason for bringing a marriage to an end.
And we don't drink cocoa, especially in bed.
The wife of a friend of mine decided she no longer wanted sex after their second child was born. She was about 40, he maybe 42 - this was nearly 20 years ago, they’ve not had sex since
He’s quite highly sexed, and desperately wanted sex. In the end he broached the idea of him quietly finding solace elsewhere and she said, if you do that I will divorce you and take the kids, the house, etc
This seemed to me then, seems to me now, quite exceptionally cruel and unfair. He tolerated it because he “loved her”.
There is a lot of unseen misery in many marriages
That sounds rough. No disrespect to your mate, but maybe he was doing it wrong? Presumably if she was enjoying it she wouldn't have wanted to stop. Did they try counseling? Problems in a couple's sex life often reflect broader problems, a failure to communicate etc.
My guess - it is only a guess, of course - is that she’s not particularly sexual. Is all. And so as soon as she had the requisite pair of kids, she turned off the tap. Which is fine, natch. She showed and shows no sign of wanting sex from anyone else
But to then condemn her husband to a life without sex, with a threat of divorce, feels cruel - to me
Yes it's a horrible situation. You'd think he'd have had an inkling though that she wasn't that into sex earlier in the relationship. Perhaps he was so into her that he put it to one side. Or perhaps he was a bit inattentive in the sack and didn't notice her staring at the ceiling. I remember my mother (of all people!) told me that a good sex life was a really important part of a relationship, and she wasn't wrong.
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
After 60 most married couples go to bed with cocoa and a book anyway, probably what made the Court come to its judgement
The ruling is not relevant to the UK as the UK has no fault divorces
Which is surely the point. No one can be required to have sex against their wishes but withholding sex is an act with consequences and can be a reason for bringing a marriage to an end.
And we don't drink cocoa, especially in bed.
The wife of a friend of mine decided she no longer wanted sex after their second child was born. She was about 40, he maybe 42 - this was nearly 20 years ago, they’ve not had sex since
He’s quite highly sexed, and desperately wanted sex. In the end he broached the idea of him quietly finding solace elsewhere and she said, if you do that I will divorce you and take the kids, the house, etc
This seemed to me then, seems to me now, quite exceptionally cruel and unfair. He tolerated it because he “loved her”.
There is a lot of unseen misery in many marriages
That sounds rough. No disrespect to your mate, but maybe he was doing it wrong? Presumably if she was enjoying it she wouldn't have wanted to stop. Did they try counseling? Problems in a couple's sex life often reflect broader problems, a failure to communicate etc.
My guess - it is only a guess, of course - is that she’s not particularly sexual. Is all. And so as soon as she had the requisite pair of kids, she turned off the tap. Which is fine, natch. She showed and shows no sign of wanting sex from anyone else
But to then condemn her husband to a life without sex, with a threat of divorce, feels cruel - to me
If other avenues, such as counselling, don't work, then divorce is probably the way to go. If it began 20 years ago, then the kids aren't kids any more and can decide for themselves where they want to live. And I doubt that she can take the house. In a no-fault divorce, I'd expect such things to be shared equally between the parties. They'll probably both have to move to smaller places. It's his shout: which does he value more? A comfy but sexless life with his wife, or a less comfy but free life elsewhere.
Of slightly niche interest, but I was surprised to find out that it is seven years today since Mark E Smith died. It doesn't feel like it. Anyway, his Wikipedia page is interesting (everything about him is interesting) - to keep this vaguely related to this site, these are his political views, which could stand as a proxy for the views of much of Labour's traditional base over the last 50 years:
Originally a Labour supporter, Smith left the party during the Falklands War (which he supported), then became further disillusioned with Labour during the Tony Blair era.[67] In the 1997 election, he voted for the Conservative Party in opposition to Blair.[68] Asked during a mid-1980s interview with Smash Hits as to what policies he would adopt if he became Prime Minister, he said: "I'd halve the price of cigarettes, double the tax on health food, then I'd declare war on France."[69] In a 2012 interview, Smith jokingly stated he would put the Queen in charge of Britain when asked the same question.[70] Smith also expressed support for the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Although a longstanding member of the Musicians Union, he criticised their political outlook, saying, "all they say is vote Corbyn and stay in the European Union.
From the Bluesky side, it had stabilised post Musk's end of the pier show at just under a million posts per day, and last night was at just over 28 million users, ticking up at perhaps 60-70k per day. https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
As of this morning, it is at 29.2 million accounts, so that is plus one million in 4 days - 250k per day. Obviously encouraged by Trump, and by Musk's gesture politics. And up from ~250k in August 2024.
So on this trend minus a chunk, for it being a flurry, we'll be looking at ~50 million accounts by Easter, and numbers plus which communities / opinion leaders / organisations shift to Bluesky will make it clearer whether this will be a broader ecosystem.
For bluesky to truly succeed it desperately needs a lot of centrist and, especially, right wing accounts to move
I see no sign of that. Bluesky is actively hostile to these people
So we will end up with two different but similar Twitter-like places and even less interaction between left and right. Not good
Actively hostile?
(Looks at twitter DMs). I could bring Police Scotland to a shuddering halt if I were to report every violent threat I've received on twitter. The blame for this division lies squarely with the social media firm that allows someone who advocates for a beaver reintroductions or a cycle lane here or there to receive that volume of abuse.
Sure, but conversely if Bluesky ever does take off with a wide range of opinion then you will get that on Bluesky as well (indeed there are already early reports of bullying and harrassment on Bluesky - which could be seen as a good sign of its growth)
I've just joined blue-sky, and I'm underwhelmed. None of the sports people/ companies I'm interested in have a presence there. My favourite bike brand isn't on it, other brands have an account, but no posts or media. Barely even a decent conspiracy theory nutjob on there. Hopefully, it'll pick up.
I created a Bluesky account but don't go on there. Doesn't look particularly appealing! As for Twitter, I'm enjoying the calming effect of not being exposed to fact-free shithousery.
Debate is crucial to politics and society. I've had my own journey from Blairite to give Corbyn a try to Social Democrat - those evolutions happen thanks to debate.
My problem with Twitter and the alt-left/alt-right is that we're not debating based on facts or evidence or science or rationale. Something is said which is demonstrably not true which becomes the credo of that politics. Disagree and be disowned. Happened extensively with those Momentum wazzocks inside Labour, and now here we are with Truss issuing "I didn't crash the economy" letters despite having to fire, u-turn and resign because she demonstrably did. And then otherwise seemingly sensible people repeating this revisionism as if its not only true but is CLEARLY the only possible truth.
This is why I feel at home in the LibDems. We have some proper rows over policy. But they're not facts vs fiction. We agree where we are - which is more than some Labour and Tory people can manage - and then debate what we do about it.
Leeds becomes first Russell Group university to quit X but will stay on other platforms like Bluesky.
Probably pandering to students.
People quit twitter, people join it. So what. Why make such a drama out of it apart from to say "look at me I'm being worthy"
Businesses also need to bear in mind plenty of their customers are still there and far fewer of them would be on Bluesky.
Posting stuff to make your interns/comms team feel better about their lives may be nice but it does not help customer engagement.
Maybe some things are more important than customer engagement?
Yes. If enough people leave X it's dead.
If you leave a platform for only one side to engage with, you have to be prepared for the consequence that that side gets a lot of opportunity to influence the users caught in the middle.
For a while but once a critical mass leaves that's the end of X. Bit like a run on a bank.
Of slightly niche interest, but I was surprised to find out that it is seven years today since Mark E Smith died. It doesn't feel like it. Anyway, his Wikipedia page is interesting (everything about him is interesting) - to keep this vaguely related to this site, these are his political views, which could stand as a proxy for the views of much of Labour's traditional base over the last 50 years:
Originally a Labour supporter, Smith left the party during the Falklands War (which he supported), then became further disillusioned with Labour during the Tony Blair era.[67] In the 1997 election, he voted for the Conservative Party in opposition to Blair.[68] Asked during a mid-1980s interview with Smash Hits as to what policies he would adopt if he became Prime Minister, he said: "I'd halve the price of cigarettes, double the tax on health food, then I'd declare war on France."[69] In a 2012 interview, Smith jokingly stated he would put the Queen in charge of Britain when asked the same question.[70] Smith also expressed support for the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Although a longstanding member of the Musicians Union, he criticised their political outlook, saying, "all they say is vote Corbyn and stay in the European Union.
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
After 60 most married couples go to bed with cocoa and a book anyway, probably what made the Court come to its judgement
The ruling is not relevant to the UK as the UK has no fault divorces
Which is surely the point. No one can be required to have sex against their wishes but withholding sex is an act with consequences and can be a reason for bringing a marriage to an end.
And we don't drink cocoa, especially in bed.
The wife of a friend of mine decided she no longer wanted sex after their second child was born. She was about 40, he maybe 42 - this was nearly 20 years ago, they’ve not had sex since
He’s quite highly sexed, and desperately wanted sex. In the end he broached the idea of him quietly finding solace elsewhere and she said, if you do that I will divorce you and take the kids, the house, etc
This seemed to me then, seems to me now, quite exceptionally cruel and unfair. He tolerated it because he “loved her”.
There is a lot of unseen misery in many marriages
That sounds rough. No disrespect to your mate, but maybe he was doing it wrong? Presumably if she was enjoying it she wouldn't have wanted to stop. Did they try counseling? Problems in a couple's sex life often reflect broader problems, a failure to communicate etc.
My guess - it is only a guess, of course - is that she’s not particularly sexual. Is all. And so as soon as she had the requisite pair of kids, she turned off the tap. Which is fine, natch. She showed and shows no sign of wanting sex from anyone else
But to then condemn her husband to a life without sex, with a threat of divorce, feels cruel - to me
If other avenues, such as counselling, don't work, then divorce is probably the way to go. If it began was 20 years, then the kids aren't kids any more and can decide for themselves where they want to live. And I doubt that she can take the house. In a no-fault divorce, I'd expect such things to be shared equally between the parties. They'll probably both have to move to smaller places. It's his shout: which does he value more? A comfy but sexless life with his wife, or a less comfy but free life elsewhere.
They’ve now reached the stage where he is almost as uninterested in sex as her, so he’s OK with it, and I believe him. But in the interim there have been two painful decades when he really wanted sex but was denied it. And he came very close - nearly had an affair with a neighbour, then with a friend of a friend, but every time he felt guilty at the last moment - and I also suspect he gave up on sex quicker because he wasn’t having sex, it was self-fulfilling
Hey ho. They have an extremely lovely house in Kent, two healthy adult sons, plenty of cash, he likes foraging and does it for a living (after making his money in publishing, and selling at JUST the right moment in Kew). It’s not One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
“Manufacturers have entered the New Year in a grim mood. Confidence has evaporated over the last three months as orders have dropped,” said Ben Jones, economist at the business group.
“A fall in domestic deliveries comes amid widespread concerns over the impact of the increase in National Insurance contributions, minimum wages and changes to employment law on firms’ operating costs.”
Much of the global manufacturing sector is struggling with German industry gripped by high energy prices, weak demand and stiff competition from Chinese car manufacturers, while China itself is also battling against an economic slump caused in part by a property crisis.
I am leaving end of next month where I work, Yesterday due to fallin order book and no real sign of an uptick they announced compulsory redundancies. I have been there over a decade and this has never happened before. The assumption is orders will pick up but this has been said for 12 months and it just does not happen and no sign of it happening. We sell consumables and equipment. We have not had an order for a piece of equipment for over 12 months now. Our customers have simply got no capex expenditure at the moment. We have only had a few enquiries too.
The equipment we sell is the route to market for alot of our consumables. The razor and the razorblades analogy and it is just not happening.
Reeves is definitely now making the right noises about growth and seems to be pivoting into the right approach however the damage has been done in the past 6 months.
I'm afraid I have lirrle confidence in Reeves. She has put growth in to reverse gear and the impact of her policies have yet to feed fully through. She evidently had no plan to get the economy growing and Labour is now trying to put one together and will have an internal battle to straighten things out first. The Net Zero versus growth dichotomy is just the first. Sad fact is Reeves will need to reverse lots of her policies ( see non doms ) and its whether she has the courage to recognise she was wrong and change. I doubt it.
She does seem to be doing a partial reverse on non doms and is now being attacked from the left as a consequence.
She needs to do far more but over the last week, week and a half, she does seem to be doing some positive things on growth.
I get the lack of confidence. She has done little to gain any and we are reaping the consequences of the doom and gloom rhetoric when labour came to power however if she does turn it around and does start doing positive things on growth then she has much to gain.
The Left need a reality check. If you want a world-class NHS, you need rich people to pay for it (even if they don't use it).
Chasing the rich away may give warm fuzzy feelings to the Left. Until they have to start explaining the closure of hospital wards. Utter pillocks.
Isn't the point that rich (foreign) people weren't paying?
Yes, they spend money here which does boost the economy, and there'll be some tax take on that too. However, depending on wealthy individuals who make money elsewhere (or indeed even wealthy individuals here) is not a very sustainable tax base. It would be much better to create a faster-growing economy that spreads its growth more evenly - which is also good politics as excessive inequality is a recipe for resentment, division and radicalism, not to mention slower growth anyway as people don't feel a stake in what they're doing.
So far, Labour has given distinctly mixed messages on improving growth and its actions are having a lot more effect than its words.
The current government has been telling those rich foreign people to f**k off, and then f**k off some more, so they’re no longer spending any money in London, preferring to enjoy their wealth in Dubai and Singapore.
Meanwhile UK payroll taxes are going up, so those wanting to invest are looking elsewhere.
The only positive is that the EU is doing even better at killing investment, so the UK might become the least-worst destination in the region.
That's not a positive. Britain needs a stable and growing EU, both to trade with and because political disruptions there affect here.
The ultra-rich f'ing off to Dubai is a feature not a bug. Personally, I don't have a problem with pandering to them with special favours. Deflating the London property bubble would be no bad thing either.
But there will be some initial tax loss, so that makes it all the more important that you get the rest of the economy producing.
No, we need it all. We need millionaires to spend money here and put down roots (or stay here), AND we need to revive the manufacturing economy. And a lot else besides. Getting rid of millionaires is lunacy, and doesn’t help the 'rest of the economy' one iota.
It's not 'getting rid of millionaires'; it's not worrying excessively about a small number of hyper-rich who *have no intention of putting roots down*, whose residency is very transactional, and - as a result - get a lot more out of Britain than Britain gets out of them.
As of the 75th anniversary of NATO last July: Here is how much the 32 NATO members spend on defense as a portion of GDP:
9 NATO allies were spending 2 percent of GDP or more in 2021 when Trump left office. That number rose to 21 countries meeting the 2 percent goal under President Biden.
US defense spending represents about 3.4 percent of the $28.7 trillion US economy. The next four top spenders in dollar terms are Germany ($97.7bn), the UK ($82.1bn), France ($64.3bn) and Poland ($34.9bn).
As a portion of GDP, Poland (4.1 percent), Estonia (3.4 percent), the US (3.4 percent), Latvia (3.2 percent) and Greece (3.1 percent) spend the most while Spain (1.3 percent), Slovenia (1.3 percent), Luxembourg (1.3 percent), Belgium (1.3 percent) and Canada (1.4 percent) spend the least.
Of slightly niche interest, but I was surprised to find out that it is seven years today since Mark E Smith died. It doesn't feel like it. Anyway, his Wikipedia page is interesting (everything about him is interesting) - to keep this vaguely related to this site, these are his political views, which could stand as a proxy for the views of much of Labour's traditional base over the last 50 years:
Originally a Labour supporter, Smith left the party during the Falklands War (which he supported), then became further disillusioned with Labour during the Tony Blair era.[67] In the 1997 election, he voted for the Conservative Party in opposition to Blair.[68] Asked during a mid-1980s interview with Smash Hits as to what policies he would adopt if he became Prime Minister, he said: "I'd halve the price of cigarettes, double the tax on health food, then I'd declare war on France."[69] In a 2012 interview, Smith jokingly stated he would put the Queen in charge of Britain when asked the same question.[70] Smith also expressed support for the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Although a longstanding member of the Musicians Union, he criticised their political outlook, saying, "all they say is vote Corbyn and stay in the European Union.
"International law is preventing the UK from giving teenage killers such as Axel Rudakubana whole life orders, a Cabinet minister has said.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, suggested that the UN convention on children’s rights stops Britain from being able to impose unlimited sentences on under-18s."
Heaven preserve us from grandstanding politicians. Rudakubana drew a 52-year minimum which is enough to be getting on with. Ministers pontificating on sentences and knife sales and widening definitions just masks the real issues around what to do about non-terrorist dangers.
That kid was bang out of order. Fairly decent chance of getting fucked up inside anyway, I would have thought.
Well exactly. Unless he's going into solitary, he has a very high likelihood of a very unpleasant time.
Absolutely.
Sara Sharif’s Dad has already been the recipient of prison ‘justice’
“Analysis shows the volume of antisemitic Tweets more than doubled after Musk’s acquisition. Between June and October 27th, the weekly average of plausibly antisemitic Tweets was 6,204. From October 27th until February 9, the average was 12,762, an increase of 105%.
“A significant surge of new accounts posting plausibly antisemitic content was identified. 3,855 such accounts were created between Oct 27 and Nov 6, an increase of 223% compared to the 11 days (the equivalent timespan) leading up to Oct 27. Whilst Musk claimed that “hate Tweets will be max deboosted”, data showed only a very small decrease in the average levels of engagement or interaction with antisemitic Tweets before and after the takeover.”
Quite so, and hardly a surprise. Tons of it on his platform, although they seem to have slightly trimmed it down, in the last month or so.
Is anyone familiar with the actual rules around driving after eye dilation?
This morning I have a tartar of a nurse who says she would not want me to even be cycling .afterwards.
A question many of my diabetes patients ask.
The answer is that it is legal to drive when the influence of the drops has worn off, which varies with the drops used and the spectacle prescription. With me it's about 30 minutes.
Otherwise it depends on weather conditions. If it's sunny then there is a problem of glare, and also at night with headlights, much less so on a dull overcast day.
There is a distance vision criteria for driving, a number plate at 20 meters, but even dilated most drivers make that. The bigger problem is glare, and theoretically insurance could be invalid as under the influence of medication.
OK. Back from the Opthalmology Clinic, where I'm up for treatment for my first diabetic eye complication (after 25 years) - a macular oedema, which is fluid trapped behind the retina which over time blurs the eyesight somewhat. Treatment is a course of injections of something called EYLEA (I'm not going into detail - look it up ).
I'll comment to @Foxy , and thanks for the other replies (even the jokes).
So, Foxy, it's basically my decision to make sure that I am safe to drive, and my responsibility if I get the decision wrong.
The nurse this morning indicated that had I been driving, or I think cycling, and told her so, she would have refused to treat me with eye-drops as a matter of her Duty of Care to the public / professional responsibility, as had I then had a collision my insurance would perhaps have been inapplicable so I would have the book thrown at me, and she would be for the high jump from her regulators. I did quiz her quite extensively. I don't know a legal basis for the application to cycling, and she became a touch vague when I started asking about mobility scooters!
So by your comments someone is being somewhat overcautious, possibly at hospital policy level.
Practically I have always been quite comfortable driving after a lunch post-appointment, or after a trip round the supermarket - so after 60 minutes. However, it has always been my practice since diagnosis around 2000 to have Reactions and anti-glare lenses to help manage circumstances, just as a passive safety thing. Also, I live close to the hospital (10 minutes) and would be very cautious if say I lived 40km away. Of course, this time of year is the worst for low dazzle from winter sun, which is why so many "slow-down, me?" people drive through pedestrians and cyclists they don't even see.
Incidentally, I have my new two sets of glasses arriving this week, and they cost exactly what I said on here last year - £530 (£800 - £270 'discounts'). That's 2x £130 frames, both with ultrathin lenses, anti-glare, 4 way mobile hinges to 170 degrees, high end varifocal, one with reactions for external / driving, the other clear for indoors / computer. Specsavers always has one feature totally undiscounted, which is currently thinning, which is where they make the money. One hopes these will last several years.
Dunno if DJTJ, who is basically Hunter Biden not on crack, has the sort of energy and work ethic required for a presidential campaign. If he's going to do it, then he should have a PAC set up now and be raising money, schmoozing donors, etc. He conspicuously isn't. The other road block is the guylinered psycho JDV who will, without doubt, run against DJTJ if there is an open primary.
Ivanka is more likely, as DJT at least seems to like her.
I appreciate that I'm in the minority here (though not that much in the minority - it's not widely held but other people have suggested it) but if DJT wants DJTJ to take over, there is no guarantee that 2028 will be a free and fair election.
I'm of the opinion that if Trump wants to continue to be President post 2028, he'll find a way; and if he wants his son to be President then that will happen too.
I appreciate there are probably markets up already on 2028. A good tell whether I'm right or not (and I hope I'm not) will be those markets being quietly withdrawn as the time draws closer.
There are Russian presidential elections, but I don't think there are markets on those, or that any bookie offers any odds?
"International law is preventing the UK from giving teenage killers such as Axel Rudakubana whole life orders, a Cabinet minister has said.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, suggested that the UN convention on children’s rights stops Britain from being able to impose unlimited sentences on under-18s."
Heaven preserve us from grandstanding politicians. Rudakubana drew a 52-year minimum which is enough to be getting on with. Ministers pontificating on sentences and knife sales and widening definitions just masks the real issues around what to do about non-terrorist dangers.
That kid was bang out of order. Fairly decent chance of getting fucked up inside anyway, I would have thought.
Well exactly. Unless he's going into solitary, he has a very high likelihood of a very unpleasant time.
Absolutely.
Sara Sharif’s Dad has already been the recipient of prison ‘justice’
Rudakubana is FAR more notorious than Sara Sharif’s dad; every hopeless, psychotic prisoner in the UK will want the honour of slotting him with a shank
I expect he will be in solitary for the first 20 years, if not forever
Three judges who oversaw family court proceedings related to the care of Sara Sharif can be named next week, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Mr Justice Williams issued a ruling last year that the three judges involved in historic family court cases related to Sara, as well as social workers and guardians, could not be named due to a "real risk" of harm from a "virtual lynch mob".
This week (only six months into a new parliament) has given great of ammunition for those who would prefer a reduced number of MPs.
Earlier we had a new LD MP demanding that more women footballers appeared on birthday cards.
We now have this gem from another obviously bored Labour MP, who has too much thinking time to himself:
Question Asked by Chris Evans
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, whether she plans to amend the list of protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 to include hair colour.
Answer Answered by Anneliese Dodds
on 23 January 2025
The Government has no such plans.
Obviously you’ve never had to deal with somebody who was bullied for being a ginger.
Is anyone familiar with the actual rules around driving after eye dilation?
This morning I have a tartar of a nurse who says she would not want me to even be cycling .afterwards.
A question many of my diabetes patients ask.
The answer is that it is legal to drive when the influence of the drops has worn off, which varies with the drops used and the spectacle prescription. With me it's about 30 minutes.
Otherwise it depends on weather conditions. If it's sunny then there is a problem of glare, and also at night with headlights, much less so on a dull overcast day.
There is a distance vision criteria for driving, a number plate at 20 meters, but even dilated most drivers make that. The bigger problem is glare, and theoretically insurance could be invalid as under the influence of medication.
OK. Back from the Opthalmology Clinic, where I'm up for treatment for my first diabetic eye complication (after 25 years) - a macular oedema, which is fluid trapped behind the retina which over time blurs the eyesight somewhat. Treatment is a course of injections of something called EYLEA (I'm not going into detail - look it up ).
I'll comment to @Foxy , and thanks for the other replies (even the jokes).
So, Foxy, it's basically my decision to make sure that I am safe to drive, and my responsibility if I get the decision wrong.
The nurse this morning indicated that had I been driving, or I think cycling, and told her so, she would have refused to treat me with eye-drops as a matter of her Duty of Care to the public / professional responsibility, as had I then had a collision my insurance would perhaps have been inapplicable so I would have the book thrown at me, and she would be for the high jump from her regulators. I did quiz her quite extensively. I don't know a legal basis for the application to cycling, and she became a touch vague when I started asking about mobility scooters!
So by your comments someone is being somewhat overcautious, possibly at hospital policy level.
Practically I have always been quite comfortable driving after a lunch post-appointment, or after a trip round the supermarket - so after 60 minutes. However, it has always been my practice since diagnosis around 2000 to have Reactions and anti-glare lenses to help manage circumstances, just as a passive safety thing. Also, I live close to the hospital (10 minutes) and would be very cautious if say I lived 40km away. Of course, this time of year is the worst for low dazzle from winter sun, which is why so many "slow-down, me?" people drive through pedestrians and cyclists they don't even see.
Incidentally, I have my new two sets of glasses arriving this week, and they cost exactly what I said on here last year - £530 (£800 - £270 'discounts'). That's 2x £130 frames, both with ultrathin lenses, anti-glare, 4 way mobile hinges to 170 degrees, high end varifocal, one with reactions for external / driving, the other clear for indoors / computer. Specsavers always has one feature totally undiscounted, which is currently thinning, which is where they make the money. One hopes these will last several years.
They always get you. Vision express will replace the scratched lenses in your £250 glasses for £80. Ah, but there's a £90 "reglazing fee", whose only purpose it seems is to nudge you towards getting new glasses and penalize you if you don't.
As of the 75th anniversary of NATO last July: Here is how much the 32 NATO members spend on defense as a portion of GDP:
9 NATO allies were spending 2 percent of GDP or more in 2021 when Trump left office. That number rose to 21 countries meeting the 2 percent goal under President Biden.
US defense spending represents about 3.4 percent of the $28.7 trillion US economy. The next four top spenders in dollar terms are Germany ($97.7bn), the UK ($82.1bn), France ($64.3bn) and Poland ($34.9bn).
As a portion of GDP, Poland (4.1 percent), Estonia (3.4 percent), the US (3.4 percent), Latvia (3.2 percent) and Greece (3.1 percent) spend the most while Spain (1.3 percent), Slovenia (1.3 percent), Luxembourg (1.3 percent), Belgium (1.3 percent) and Canada (1.4 percent) spend the least.
So, applying the Trump logic, Joe Biden got them to increase their spending.
A tactic to keep Trump on board wrt NATO, suggested by a Republican strategist, is to go for 2% or 2.5% over 3-5 years, and outline a plan to get to 2.5% or 3% over the next 5 years.
It not mattering whether the second half happens, since he will be gone by then.
It's like a nurse managing senile grandad; but that is where we are.
Police request transcripts from Prince Harry’s case against owner of the Sun
Exclusive: Campaigners hope for investigation into claims of ‘perjury and cover-ups’ against News Group Newspapers
The Met police have requested transcripts of the pre-trial hearings in Prince Harry’s phone-hacking case against Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper empire, the Guardian can reveal, as fresh calls were made for a new criminal investigation.
The development will raise the hopes among press intrusion campaigners of a potential new investigation into allegations of “perjury and cover-ups” made against News Group Newspapers (NGN), the owner of the Sun.
The case between Harry and NGN was settled on Wednesday, just 14 minutes before the trial was to begin, with the offer by Murdoch’s newspaper company of substantial damages and an apology to Harry and Tom Watson, the former deputy leader of the Labour party, who was a co-claimant.
The admission by NGN of “incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for the Sun” was the first time the company had recognised illegality beyond the now defunct News of the World.
I see Leon has moved on to slurring Holocaust educators, but I can’t decide if that’s more or less ridiculous than Sandpit claiming Jan 6 was mostly peaceful.
I’m not slurring him, I am talking about the person you quoted, Julie Gray, the PARTNER (not the Holocaust survivor), it turns out this person you quote who described Musk as “a sociopath” with “no interest in the Holocaust” actually makes money by
WORKING CLOSELY WITH GAMING PIONEERS TO DO DISPLAYS ABOUT DEATH CAMPS
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
After 60 most married couples go to bed with cocoa and a book anyway, probably what made the Court come to its judgement
The ruling is not relevant to the UK as the UK has no fault divorces
Unlike more Roman Catholic France and Italy and Ireland still yes
Saves a lot of unnecessary acrimony in a process that is stressful for those concerned
For some for others if no adultery or domestic violence involved may just be a bump in the relationship that can be worked on.
Roman Catholics of course still can't get a church approved divorce without a specific annulment
You are either naive or have no real life experience of divorce
To be fair to Roman Catholics they have stuck to their opposition to divorce for centuries, a former Pope even refusing King Henry VIII one, hence he founded the Church of England and broke with Rome
Henry VIII was seeking an annulment not a divorce.
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
Given the degree of damage being inflicted upon both the military power and the military prestige of Russia, the expenditure on the part of the UK government looks like the bargain of the century.
Why?
Russia has lost its frontline and best military equipment and soldiers. They are fighting with the second line now - large quantities of reworked ancient kit. The stockpiles of ancient tanks, APCs and SPGs has been massively depleted as well. The airforce is massively reduced as well. Production of new weapons is a trickle, and they are relying on North Korea for support. The Russian navy has taken massive losses as well.
On the international arms market, their reputation has completely collapsed. Russian tanks are associated with turret tossing.
All for the "cost", to the UK (among the rest), of mostly near time expired munitions and some training.
Putin would now, definitely, lose a war against... Poland.
So what? What have the military fortunes of a country which has never stood a serious chance of conventional invasion of the UK got to do with us that makes it worth denuding our own forces of military hardware and ammunition, to say nothing of just bunging £600mill at them to spend on other country's munitions without even passing through our own defence industry. The only deadly threat from Russia to the UK that I can perceive is if they start firing missiles at us, and I've seen precisely squat on defending against that possibility from our Government. And how does undermining Russia's military capability using Ukraine as the mechanism, as clever as that might be, help us with the strategic threat of China? The threat of Islamic radicalism? You know - actual issues?
As for putting "cost" in inverted commas, you must know that's utterly ludicrous. AI (fact checking is necessary) says this about the UK's support:
The UK Government has committed significant funds to support Ukraine’s war effort. As of the latest updates, the UK has provided or pledged around £12.8 billion in military aid. Additionally, the UK has agreed to provide an unprecedented $5 billion (£4 billion) in guarantees to enable Ukraine to access World Bank lending. More recently, the UK announced an extra £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, bringing the total military support to over £15 billion. This includes both direct financial aid and guarantees to support Ukraine’s recovery and defense (sic).
If it's anything like that, whilst the UK Government makes a mere £2.8bn from freezing grannies, it is a total farce, and deserves more debate than being placed in inverted commas and dismissed as 'some training and clapped out equipment' ffs.
It's not about the money, though, be honest. £12.8bn is about 0.3% of UK public expenditure over the period.
Your real grievance is that we've deprived Putin's Russia of their rightful victory in Ukraine.
No, that is not my 'real grievance' that is a pathetic, intellectually lazy trope that gets trotted out every time someone inconveniently questions the establishment view. "Giving succour to Putin/Tommy Robinson/inset bogeyman here". My view has always been utterly consistent - I focus on Britain's national interest and I see Putin no differently to any unpleasant foreign potentate. Not good, but far from likely to be the worst alternative. See also Gadaffi and Hussein.
"International law is preventing the UK from giving teenage killers such as Axel Rudakubana whole life orders, a Cabinet minister has said.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, suggested that the UN convention on children’s rights stops Britain from being able to impose unlimited sentences on under-18s."
Heaven preserve us from grandstanding politicians. Rudakubana drew a 52-year minimum which is enough to be getting on with. Ministers pontificating on sentences and knife sales and widening definitions just masks the real issues around what to do about non-terrorist dangers.
That kid was bang out of order. Fairly decent chance of getting fucked up inside anyway, I would have thought.
Well exactly. Unless he's going into solitary, he has a very high likelihood of a very unpleasant time.
Absolutely.
Sara Sharif’s Dad has already been the recipient of prison ‘justice’
Still it's not a sign of great health in our polity that we're half-hoping for someone to get illegally shanked in prison to dispense proper justice.
Most major damage so far is to to new builds - one entire roof has ended up in the street, and the cladding on the side of an apartment building has peeled off.
I guess that's because this is the first real test for these buildings. Mine has had 150 years to get to this degree of resilience.
"International law is preventing the UK from giving teenage killers such as Axel Rudakubana whole life orders, a Cabinet minister has said.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, suggested that the UN convention on children’s rights stops Britain from being able to impose unlimited sentences on under-18s."
Heaven preserve us from grandstanding politicians. Rudakubana drew a 52-year minimum which is enough to be getting on with. Ministers pontificating on sentences and knife sales and widening definitions just masks the real issues around what to do about non-terrorist dangers.
That kid was bang out of order. Fairly decent chance of getting fucked up inside anyway, I would have thought.
Well exactly. Unless he's going into solitary, he has a very high likelihood of a very unpleasant time.
Absolutely.
Sara Sharif’s Dad has already been the recipient of prison ‘justice’
Still it's not a sign of great health in our polity that we're half-hoping for someone to get illegally shanked in prison to dispense proper justice.
Not to mention that we can't keep people safe in prisons despite cctv, locks and guards. No wonder our recidivism rate is so high. No votes in it.
Of slightly niche interest, but I was surprised to find out that it is seven years today since Mark E Smith died. It doesn't feel like it. Anyway, his Wikipedia page is interesting (everything about him is interesting) - to keep this vaguely related to this site, these are his political views, which could stand as a proxy for the views of much of Labour's traditional base over the last 50 years:
Originally a Labour supporter, Smith left the party during the Falklands War (which he supported), then became further disillusioned with Labour during the Tony Blair era.[67] In the 1997 election, he voted for the Conservative Party in opposition to Blair.[68] Asked during a mid-1980s interview with Smash Hits as to what policies he would adopt if he became Prime Minister, he said: "I'd halve the price of cigarettes, double the tax on health food, then I'd declare war on France."[69] In a 2012 interview, Smith jokingly stated he would put the Queen in charge of Britain when asked the same question.[70] Smith also expressed support for the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Although a longstanding member of the Musicians Union, he criticised their political outlook, saying, "all they say is vote Corbyn and stay in the European Union.
Labour also supported the Falklands War. I've tried to like The Fall over the years but gave up.
I’m the same!
I have friends whose tastes are generally impeccable and they LOVE The Fall
I’ve tried many times and yet - nothing. Something missing - for me
It's just not very tuneful. Perhaps I am a bit basic, but tunefulness is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for me to enjoy music.
Me too. I've tried and failed to like The Fall. I wanted to, but I couldn't. Likewise Sake (the drink).
No, not a great fan of The Fall. Though, ironically, they are probably as relevant in the indie/alternative space as they have been for many years, where a more 80s sound and irascible, non-sequiteur lyricism are in vogue. That said the genre itself is somewhat diminished from those days.
From the Mercury winning English Teacher, a name check from (the somewhat annoying but the odd great tune) CMAT, and personal choices Working Mens Club (electronic side of early 80s Manc) and (Havering's own, shoegaze tinged but definitely irascible) Hank.
Songs to check - (World's Biggest Paving Slab, Whatever's Inconvenient, Valleys, Pull It Off)
Most major damage so far is to to new builds - one entire roof has ended up in the street, and the cladding on the side of an apartment building has peeled off.
I guess that's because this is the first real test for these buildings. Mine has had 150 years to get to this degree of resilience...
(narrator...or the weaker houses died first. Survival of the fittest.)
Of slightly niche interest, but I was surprised to find out that it is seven years today since Mark E Smith died. It doesn't feel like it. Anyway, his Wikipedia page is interesting (everything about him is interesting) - to keep this vaguely related to this site, these are his political views, which could stand as a proxy for the views of much of Labour's traditional base over the last 50 years:
Originally a Labour supporter, Smith left the party during the Falklands War (which he supported), then became further disillusioned with Labour during the Tony Blair era.[67] In the 1997 election, he voted for the Conservative Party in opposition to Blair.[68] Asked during a mid-1980s interview with Smash Hits as to what policies he would adopt if he became Prime Minister, he said: "I'd halve the price of cigarettes, double the tax on health food, then I'd declare war on France."[69] In a 2012 interview, Smith jokingly stated he would put the Queen in charge of Britain when asked the same question.[70] Smith also expressed support for the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Although a longstanding member of the Musicians Union, he criticised their political outlook, saying, "all they say is vote Corbyn and stay in the European Union.
"International law is preventing the UK from giving teenage killers such as Axel Rudakubana whole life orders, a Cabinet minister has said.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, suggested that the UN convention on children’s rights stops Britain from being able to impose unlimited sentences on under-18s."
This looks like the Telegraph trying to make a mountain out of a molehill to me.
52 years, plus only released when the Parole Committee say there is minimal risk to the public, seems very little different to a whole life tariff to me. Whole life tariffs are applied afaics less than once a year - there was a splurge when they came in in 1983, but they seem to have got rarer; there are 60 in total.
They are fluffing Captain Mainwaring, and starting up the narrow-based outrage bus.
Of slightly niche interest, but I was surprised to find out that it is seven years today since Mark E Smith died. It doesn't feel like it. Anyway, his Wikipedia page is interesting (everything about him is interesting) - to keep this vaguely related to this site, these are his political views, which could stand as a proxy for the views of much of Labour's traditional base over the last 50 years:
Originally a Labour supporter, Smith left the party during the Falklands War (which he supported), then became further disillusioned with Labour during the Tony Blair era.[67] In the 1997 election, he voted for the Conservative Party in opposition to Blair.[68] Asked during a mid-1980s interview with Smash Hits as to what policies he would adopt if he became Prime Minister, he said: "I'd halve the price of cigarettes, double the tax on health food, then I'd declare war on France."[69] In a 2012 interview, Smith jokingly stated he would put the Queen in charge of Britain when asked the same question.[70] Smith also expressed support for the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Although a longstanding member of the Musicians Union, he criticised their political outlook, saying, "all they say is vote Corbyn and stay in the European Union.
Most major damage so far is to to new builds - one entire roof has ended up in the street, and the cladding on the side of an apartment building has peeled off.
I guess that's because this is the first real test for these buildings. Mine has had 150 years to get to this degree of resilience.
I had to clear a large section of roof from the street this morning. 1850s building.
"Zelenskyy was fighting a much bigger entity, much bigger, much more powerful," Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "He shouldn’t have done that, because we could have made a deal."
[…]
"I could have made that deal so easily, and Zelenskyy decided that 'I want to fight,'" Trump said.
[…]
Trump has taken a markedly different approach, saying in the Fox News interview that Zelenskyy is "no angel," adding that he "shouldn't have allowed this war to happen."
Is anyone familiar with the actual rules around driving after eye dilation?
This morning I have a tartar of a nurse who says she would not want me to even be cycling .afterwards.
A question many of my diabetes patients ask.
The answer is that it is legal to drive when the influence of the drops has worn off, which varies with the drops used and the spectacle prescription. With me it's about 30 minutes.
Otherwise it depends on weather conditions. If it's sunny then there is a problem of glare, and also at night with headlights, much less so on a dull overcast day.
There is a distance vision criteria for driving, a number plate at 20 meters, but even dilated most drivers make that. The bigger problem is glare, and theoretically insurance could be invalid as under the influence of medication.
OK. Back from the Opthalmology Clinic, where I'm up for treatment for my first diabetic eye complication (after 25 years) - a macular oedema, which is fluid trapped behind the retina which over time blurs the eyesight somewhat. Treatment is a course of injections of something called EYLEA (I'm not going into detail - look it up ).
I'll comment to @Foxy , and thanks for the other replies (even the jokes).
So, Foxy, it's basically my decision to make sure that I am safe to drive, and my responsibility if I get the decision wrong.
The nurse this morning indicated that had I been driving, or I think cycling, and told her so, she would have refused to treat me with eye-drops as a matter of her Duty of Care to the public / professional responsibility, as had I then had a collision my insurance would perhaps have been inapplicable so I would have the book thrown at me, and she would be for the high jump from her regulators. I did quiz her quite extensively. I don't know a legal basis for the application to cycling, and she became a touch vague when I started asking about mobility scooters!
So by your comments someone is being somewhat overcautious, possibly at hospital policy level.
Practically I have always been quite comfortable driving after a lunch post-appointment, or after a trip round the supermarket - so after 60 minutes. However, it has always been my practice since diagnosis around 2000 to have Reactions and anti-glare lenses to help manage circumstances, just as a passive safety thing. Also, I live close to the hospital (10 minutes) and would be very cautious if say I lived 40km away. Of course, this time of year is the worst for low dazzle from winter sun, which is why so many "slow-down, me?" people drive through pedestrians and cyclists they don't even see.
Incidentally, I have my new two sets of glasses arriving this week, and they cost exactly what I said on here last year - £530 (£800 - £270 'discounts'). That's 2x £130 frames, both with ultrathin lenses, anti-glare, 4 way mobile hinges to 170 degrees, high end varifocal, one with reactions for external / driving, the other clear for indoors / computer. Specsavers always has one feature totally undiscounted, which is currently thinning, which is where they make the money. One hopes these will last several years.
Yes, It sounds as if the nurse was over egging it substantially.
The government guidance is here (section 2 being the applicable section, mydriasis means dilating drops for diagnostic purposes).
As you can see in section 2.3 it is reasonable to wait until vision returns before driving. It varies a lot by individuals, but it is the drivers responsibility to ensure that they are fit to drive, not the nurse or other staff.
As of the 75th anniversary of NATO last July: Here is how much the 32 NATO members spend on defense as a portion of GDP:
9 NATO allies were spending 2 percent of GDP or more in 2021 when Trump left office. That number rose to 21 countries meeting the 2 percent goal under President Biden.
US defense spending represents about 3.4 percent of the $28.7 trillion US economy. The next four top spenders in dollar terms are Germany ($97.7bn), the UK ($82.1bn), France ($64.3bn) and Poland ($34.9bn).
As a portion of GDP, Poland (4.1 percent), Estonia (3.4 percent), the US (3.4 percent), Latvia (3.2 percent) and Greece (3.1 percent) spend the most while Spain (1.3 percent), Slovenia (1.3 percent), Luxembourg (1.3 percent), Belgium (1.3 percent) and Canada (1.4 percent) spend the least.
So, applying the Trump logic, Joe Biden got them to increase their spending.
A tactic to keep Trump on board wrt NATO, suggested by a Republican strategist, is to go for 2% or 2.5% over 3-5 years, and outline a plan to get to 2.5% or 3% over the next 5 years.
It not mattering whether the second half happens, since he will be gone by then.
It's like a nurse managing senile grandad; but that is where we are.
At this point, no such incentive is needed for Northern Europe.
"International law is preventing the UK from giving teenage killers such as Axel Rudakubana whole life orders, a Cabinet minister has said.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, suggested that the UN convention on children’s rights stops Britain from being able to impose unlimited sentences on under-18s."
Heaven preserve us from grandstanding politicians. Rudakubana drew a 52-year minimum which is enough to be getting on with. Ministers pontificating on sentences and knife sales and widening definitions just masks the real issues around what to do about non-terrorist dangers.
That kid was bang out of order. Fairly decent chance of getting fucked up inside anyway, I would have thought.
Well exactly. Unless he's going into solitary, he has a very high likelihood of a very unpleasant time.
Absolutely.
Sara Sharif’s Dad has already been the recipient of prison ‘justice’
Still it's not a sign of great health in our polity that we're half-hoping for someone to get illegally shanked in prison to dispense proper justice.
Whose the "we"?
He's been locked up, nearly certainly, for the rest of his life.
I'm not impressed by the idea of one nutter murdering or injuring another nutter to prove some version of dominance. That just sounds like more scumbaggery.
I hope @Richard_Tyndall is OK and is being paid an awful lot of money for what he's doing.
Stay safe mate.
Got another 6 hours or so before we reach the peak. Once that is over we will be a lot happier. Currently running a bit above forecast for wind speeds and sea states. The rig is creaking a bit but the anchors are holding so we should be okay.
I hope @Richard_Tyndall is OK and is being paid an awful lot of money for what he's doing.
Stay safe mate.
Got another 6 hours or so before we reach the peak. Once that is over we will be a lot happier. Currently running a bit above forecast for wind speeds and sea states. The rig is creaking a bit but the anchors are holding so we should be okay.
Comments
WORKING CLOSELY WITH GAMING PIONEERS TO DO DISPLAYS ABOUT DEATH CAMPS
Your real grievance is that we've deprived Putin's Russia of their rightful victory in Ukraine.
The acid test is whether Trump has published his medical records - as is customary for POTUSes. He put as much shenanigans into avoiding doing that as he did in avoiding facing the music for his many crimes - including staging raids on Doctors offices to confiscate his records and publishing "medical testimonies" from unqualified individuals.
But to then condemn her husband to a life without sex, with a threat of divorce, feels cruel - to me
I doubt the husband in this case, is inadequate in the sack, although that suggestion by the narcissistic partner would be the ultimate gas lighting put-down win, but it does look like this guy has allowed himself to be a doormat. I am not criticising him, his reasons for capitulation might be perfectly valid.
*I know, thin ice etc
Anyway, the Fall - not everyone's cup of tea, but those who like them really like them. The opposite of, say, Feeder.
"Zelenskyy was fighting a much bigger entity, much bigger, much more powerful," Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "He shouldn’t have done that, because we could have made a deal."
[…]
"I could have made that deal so easily, and Zelenskyy decided that 'I want to fight,'" Trump said.
[…]
Trump has taken a markedly different approach, saying in the Fox News interview that Zelenskyy is "no angel," adding that he "shouldn't have allowed this war to happen."
I have friends whose tastes are generally impeccable and they LOVE The Fall
I’ve tried many times and yet - nothing. Something missing - for me
I’ve always had a weakness for redheads.
I remember my mother (of all people!) told me that a good sex life was a really important part of a relationship, and she wasn't wrong.
Manchester to Glasgow - diverting to Krakow:
https://www.flightradar24.com/RYR309/38d9ab1e
Hey ho. They have an extremely lovely house in Kent, two healthy adult sons, plenty of cash, he likes foraging and does it for a living (after making his money in publishing, and selling at JUST the right moment in Kew). It’s not One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
The free world is DOOOOOOOMMMEEEEDDDD....
Same with kimchi. I really disliked kimchi until - in Korea - I got it hot and sizzling. Delicious
Sara Sharif’s Dad has already been the recipient of prison ‘justice’
Tons of it on his platform, although they seem to have slightly trimmed it down, in the last month or so.
I'll comment to @Foxy , and thanks for the other replies (even the jokes).
So, Foxy, it's basically my decision to make sure that I am safe to drive, and my responsibility if I get the decision wrong.
The nurse this morning indicated that had I been driving, or I think cycling, and told her so, she would have refused to treat me with eye-drops as a matter of her Duty of Care to the public / professional responsibility, as had I then had a collision my insurance would perhaps have been inapplicable so I would have the book thrown at me, and she would be for the high jump from her regulators. I did quiz her quite extensively. I don't know a legal basis for the application to cycling, and she became a touch vague when I started asking about mobility scooters!
So by your comments someone is being somewhat overcautious, possibly at hospital policy level.
Practically I have always been quite comfortable driving after a lunch post-appointment, or after a trip round the supermarket - so after 60 minutes. However, it has always been my practice since diagnosis around 2000 to have Reactions and anti-glare lenses to help manage circumstances, just as a passive safety thing. Also, I live close to the hospital (10 minutes) and would be very cautious if say I lived 40km away. Of course, this time of year is the worst for low dazzle from winter sun, which is why so many "slow-down, me?" people drive through pedestrians and cyclists they don't even see.
Incidentally, I have my new two sets of glasses arriving this week, and they cost exactly what I said on here last year - £530 (£800 - £270 'discounts'). That's 2x £130 frames, both with ultrathin lenses, anti-glare, 4 way mobile hinges to 170 degrees, high end varifocal, one with reactions for external / driving, the other clear for indoors / computer. Specsavers always has one feature totally undiscounted, which is currently thinning, which is where they make the money. One hopes these will last several years.
I'm of the opinion that if Trump wants to continue to be President post 2028, he'll find a way; and if he wants his son to be President then that will happen too.
I appreciate there are probably markets up already on 2028. A good tell whether I'm right or not (and I hope I'm not) will be those markets being quietly withdrawn as the time draws closer.
There are Russian presidential elections, but I don't think there are markets on those, or that any bookie offers any odds?
I expect he will be in solitary for the first 20 years, if not forever
They really should offer him Assisted Dying
Three judges who oversaw family court proceedings related to the care of Sara Sharif can be named next week, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Mr Justice Williams issued a ruling last year that the three judges involved in historic family court cases related to Sara, as well as social workers and guardians, could not be named due to a "real risk" of harm from a "virtual lynch mob".
https://x.com/netanyahu/status/1882392668497756279?s=61
A tactic to keep Trump on board wrt NATO, suggested by a Republican strategist, is to go for 2% or 2.5% over 3-5 years, and outline a plan to get to 2.5% or 3% over the next 5 years.
It not mattering whether the second half happens, since he will be gone by then.
It's like a nurse managing senile grandad; but that is where we are.
Police request transcripts from Prince Harry’s case against owner of the Sun
Exclusive: Campaigners hope for investigation into claims of ‘perjury and cover-ups’ against News Group Newspapers
The Met police have requested transcripts of the pre-trial hearings in Prince Harry’s phone-hacking case against Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper empire, the Guardian can reveal, as fresh calls were made for a new criminal investigation.
The development will raise the hopes among press intrusion campaigners of a potential new investigation into allegations of “perjury and cover-ups” made against News Group Newspapers (NGN), the owner of the Sun.
The case between Harry and NGN was settled on Wednesday, just 14 minutes before the trial was to begin, with the offer by Murdoch’s newspaper company of substantial damages and an apology to Harry and Tom Watson, the former deputy leader of the Labour party, who was a co-claimant.
The admission by NGN of “incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for the Sun” was the first time the company had recognised illegality beyond the now defunct News of the World.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/24/police-request-transcripts-from-prince-harry-case-against-owner-of-the-sun
I guess that's because this is the first real test for these buildings. Mine has had 150 years to get to this degree of resilience.
From the Mercury winning English Teacher, a name check from (the somewhat annoying but the odd great tune) CMAT, and personal choices Working Mens Club (electronic side of early 80s Manc) and (Havering's own, shoegaze tinged but definitely irascible) Hank.
Songs to check - (World's Biggest Paving Slab, Whatever's Inconvenient, Valleys, Pull It Off)
52 years, plus only released when the Parole Committee say there is minimal risk to the public, seems very little different to a whole life tariff to me. Whole life tariffs are applied afaics less than once a year - there was a splurge when they came in in 1983, but they seem to have got rarer; there are 60 in total.
They are fluffing Captain Mainwaring, and starting up the narrow-based outrage bus.
NEW THREAD
YMMV.
The government guidance is here (section 2 being the applicable section, mydriasis means dilating drops for diagnostic purposes).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/diabetic-eye-screening-patients-who-drive-to-appointments/diabetic-eye-screening-patients-who-drive-to-appointments
As you can see in section 2.3 it is reasonable to wait until vision returns before driving. It varies a lot by individuals, but it is the drivers responsibility to ensure that they are fit to drive, not the nurse or other staff.
They kind of deserve one another.
He's been locked up, nearly certainly, for the rest of his life.
I'm not impressed by the idea of one nutter murdering or injuring another nutter to prove some version of dominance. That just sounds like more scumbaggery.