So as not to disappoint PB with my tendency to take a contrarian view, there are some reasons to be cheerful from a Badenoch perspective.
- She recently gave CCHQ a collective kick up the arse. Granted, she perhaps should have just given them their marching orders, but one must start somewhere. - Her last PMQs outing was a growling display of conservative populism, reducing Starmer to a heap of separated mayonnaise. More of that please. - She has (against all expectations) finally released a policy. And whilst being small, it was an OK one. Not even close to a solution to mass migration, but broadly sensible, not heavily criticised from the right, and not caused an upset with the wets.
Well done Kemi!
She has been utterly useless so far, but she has a hugely difficult job.
Waiting for Labour to fail & implode won't be anywhere near enough, as Farage is her biggest danger and he won't be settling for a Nick Clegg role.
If I were leader of the opposition trying make the rain, I wouldn't go all-in opposing taxing private education, supporting tax avoidance on land holdings and opposing rent payments for tiny islands in the Indian Ocean. Whatever justification you have, these aren't mainstream concerns.
As I understand it Davey opposes vat on private schools, certainly opposes the IHT on farmers, and the Chagos deal in line with conservative and reform
Seems Labour are isolated on all 3 issues
You're pushing me back from LibDem towards Labour again! I'll have to re-examine my voting intentions vis a vis the Greens.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Fake news.
His only non white daughter-in-law had to leave the country.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Just looked at pictures of Nansledan. Actually looks much better than Poundbury. Front gardens, even if only littluns, this time. Windows in more proportion. (Reserving judgement about building stones and whether there is another obvious clash of those imported from all over.)
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
I don't know where KC3 gets all those medals. My f-i-l defused loads of bombs on Yank airbases 1943-5 and all he got was steak dinners. Which he, being veggie, didn't eat!
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
I don't know where KC3 gets all those medals. My f-i-l defused loads of bombs on Yank airbases 1943-5 and all he got was steak dinners. Which he, being veggie, didn't eat!
You do have to wonder how many in public office worry about some comments they have made on what's app in the past
As I posted earlier; NEVER write it down. You might say it, but DON'T write it. My opinion of one junior female trainee was held by my my colleagues to be 'unacceptable' but I NEVER WROTE IT DOWN.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
What's the consequence?
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Russia's invasion was wrong because it was wrong to invade another country, not because it was illegal to do so.
Your example of Germany is about EU law rather than general international law, I believe.
We agree it is wrong to invade another country. Therefore, we have a rule that should govern how countries relate to each other: don’t invade another country. Great, so we’ve just re-invented international law. You are splitting hairs in your refusal to call that a law.
No we are not, we are not governed by rules on how countries relate to each other but by realpolitik and consequences.
Spend on Defence and countries won't attack you. Spend on Lawyers and they can.
So, do you believe might is right, or do you believe it is wrong to invade another country? I believe it is wrong to invade another country.
I believe that it is wrong to invade another country and that the only way to prevent invasions is deterrence.
Deterrence has to be backed up with might.
"Rules" are utterly irrelevant and ignored if deterrence is not there. They have no impact, but deterrence does.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Monarchy is a Lefty, SJW, socialist institution! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry! Well, consider the following:
1) The hereditary principle: A feature of Lefty dynasties around the world, such as the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Kennedys in the USA, the Benns in the UK, and the Kims in North Korea!
2) Jobs for life: A socialist principle if ever there was one! The monarch is in the job for his or her natural life!
3) Pomp and circumstance: parades and what-not are hallmarks of the old Soviet Red Square military parades, and are still, to this day, a key feature of the Kims' regime in North Korea!
So, my fellow PBers, SJWs or not, I put it to you that Monarchy smacks of Socialism!!
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
What's the consequence?
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Russia's invasion was wrong because it was wrong to invade another country, not because it was illegal to do so.
Your example of Germany is about EU law rather than general international law, I believe.
We agree it is wrong to invade another country. Therefore, we have a rule that should govern how countries relate to each other: don’t invade another country. Great, so we’ve just re-invented international law. You are splitting hairs in your refusal to call that a law.
No we are not, we are not governed by rules on how countries relate to each other but by realpolitik and consequences.
Spend on Defence and countries won't attack you. Spend on Lawyers and they can.
So, do you believe might is right, or do you believe it is wrong to invade another country? I believe it is wrong to invade another country.
I believe that it is wrong to invade another country and that the only way to prevent invasions is deterrence.
Deterrence has to be backed up with might.
"Rules" are utterly irrelevant and ignored if deterrence is not there. They have no impact, but deterrence does.
And yet Luxembourg exists. As do loads of other countries that aren't capable of defending themselves from invasion.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
What's the consequence?
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Russia's invasion was wrong because it was wrong to invade another country, not because it was illegal to do so.
Your example of Germany is about EU law rather than general international law, I believe.
We agree it is wrong to invade another country. Therefore, we have a rule that should govern how countries relate to each other: don’t invade another country. Great, so we’ve just re-invented international law. You are splitting hairs in your refusal to call that a law.
No we are not, we are not governed by rules on how countries relate to each other but by realpolitik and consequences.
Spend on Defence and countries won't attack you. Spend on Lawyers and they can.
So, do you believe might is right, or do you believe it is wrong to invade another country? I believe it is wrong to invade another country.
I believe that it is wrong to invade another country and that the only way to prevent invasions is deterrence.
Deterrence has to be backed up with might.
"Rules" are utterly irrelevant and ignored if deterrence is not there. They have no impact, but deterrence does.
And yet Luxembourg exists. As do loads of other countries that aren't capable of defending themselves from invasion.
Of UN members:
Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshalls are "protected" by the USA Nauru is "protected" by Aus Samoa is "protected" by NZ Kiribati is "protected" by both Aus and NZ
You do have to wonder how many in public office worry about some comments they have made on what's app in the past
As I posted earlier; NEVER write it down. You might say it, but DON'T write it. My opinion of one junior female trainee was held by my my colleagues to be 'unacceptable' but I NEVER WROTE IT DOWN.
Trouble is, we haven't collectively internalised that electronic chat is much more like writing than it is like chatting.
That works both ways, though. The Manc Groupchatters were all pretty stupid. But the Mail was pompous and judgemental to make it their biggest story two days running.
If the worst thing we said (let alone thought) was on the front page of the papers every day, who could stand?
You do have to wonder how many in public office worry about some comments they have made on what's app in the past
As I posted earlier; NEVER write it down. You might say it, but DON'T write it. My opinion of one junior female trainee was held by my my colleagues to be 'unacceptable' but I NEVER WROTE IT DOWN.
Trouble is, we haven't collectively internalised that electronic chat is much more like writing than it is like chatting.
That works both ways, though. The Manc Groupchatters were all pretty stupid. But the Mail was pompous and judgemental to make it their biggest story two days running.
If the worst thing we said (let alone thought) was on the front page of the papers every day, who could stand?
3 people can keep a secret. Providing 2 of them are dead.
Which part of "group chat" did these people have trouble with?
You do have to wonder how many in public office worry about some comments they have made on what's app in the past
As I posted earlier; NEVER write it down. You might say it, but DON'T write it. My opinion of one junior female trainee was held by my my colleagues to be 'unacceptable' but I NEVER WROTE IT DOWN.
Trouble is, we haven't collectively internalised that electronic chat is much more like writing than it is like chatting.
That works both ways, though. The Manc Groupchatters were all pretty stupid. But the Mail was pompous and judgemental to make it their biggest story two days running.
If the worst thing we said (let alone thought) was on the front page of the papers every day, who could stand?
Wasn't it the Mail where the editor would be incredibly abusive to junior, and even not so junior staff?
This polling was not great for Farage, either. Tying with Badenoch and trailing Starmer and Davey is very much against the current media narrative, which is that he is basically Prime Minister in waiting. It's interesting that both Davey and Starmer get higher numbers against him than they do against her.
Farage is marmite- you really love him or you really hate him. Yes, he gives some people the political horn, but he also rallies his opponents against him.
The picture we get at the moment is a bit distrorting-mirror. Farage fans are loud, everyone else is shuffling anxiously and quietly.
Yes, just how is he going to tackle these awful poll ratings for Reform? Squeaky bum time at Reform Towers.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
You do have to wonder how many in public office worry about some comments they have made on what's app in the past
As I posted earlier; NEVER write it down. You might say it, but DON'T write it. My opinion of one junior female trainee was held by my my colleagues to be 'unacceptable' but I NEVER WROTE IT DOWN.
Trouble is, we haven't collectively internalised that electronic chat is much more like writing than it is like chatting.
That works both ways, though. The Manc Groupchatters were all pretty stupid. But the Mail was pompous and judgemental to make it their biggest story two days running.
If the worst thing we said (let alone thought) was on the front page of the papers every day, who could stand?
Wasn't it the Mail where the editor would be incredibly abusive to junior, and even not so junior staff?
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
I think the police are having a go, given the nonsense about "non crime crimes" that has been pushed by politicians. I'll bet both those MPs voted for that.
And they are having a go for the occasions that police officers social media has been used against them.
You do have to wonder how many in public office worry about some comments they have made on what's app in the past
As I posted earlier; NEVER write it down. You might say it, but DON'T write it. My opinion of one junior female trainee was held by my my colleagues to be 'unacceptable' but I NEVER WROTE IT DOWN.
Trouble is, we haven't collectively internalised that electronic chat is much more like writing than it is like chatting.
That works both ways, though. The Manc Groupchatters were all pretty stupid. But the Mail was pompous and judgemental to make it their biggest story two days running.
If the worst thing we said (let alone thought) was on the front page of the papers every day, who could stand?
I am not all that bothered with what was said; I think it's a fuss about nothing. However, when did any of those concerned stand up for free speech? What is their voting record on that topic? So far as I can see, they are all quite happy with censorious curtain-twitching Britain, so screw them.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
I don't know where KC3 gets all those medals. My f-i-l defused loads of bombs on Yank airbases 1943-5 and all he got was steak dinners. Which he, being veggie, didn't eat!
Aren't they mostly of chivalric orders rather than military awards?
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
Thank the Lord no one ever shoots their mouth off (figuratively) on PB.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
I think the police are having a go, given the nonsense about "non crime crimes" that has been pushed by politicians. I'll bet both those MPs voted for that.
And they are having a go for the occasions that police officers social media has been used against them.
The job Kemi had to do was tough, but her leadership has seemed oddly quiet. Maybe going for a stability first approach, which might have worked ok had Reform faded away?
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
Thank the Lord no one ever shoots their mouth off (figuratively) on PB.
If there were an MP posting on here, I'd assume they'd be pretty cautious. If they weren't, they'd be a numpty.
I think there would be a huge amount of fascinating, mind-expanding, and stimulating content in a course which has at its core "the toxic legacy of colonialism".
Not least to puncture the exceptionalism of many in this country who might, incidentally, but centrally to the premise, bridle at the topic.
But why not look at the legacy of colonialism in the round, rather than the toxic legacy?
What other historical subjects have we predetermined the verdict on before we even teach them? The toxic legacy of Elizabeth I? The toxic legacy of the Romans? The toxic legacy of the Industrial Revolution? The toxic legacy of the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act?
It is a cretinously ahistorical approach, which is how we can tell it is propaganda by grifters.
May as well just teach the toxic legacy of white heterosexual males (and rich privileged white females) and be done with it
There's something in that. There has been a history of oppression by white males (we have no particular record of their sexual preferences) and it would repay study.
As mentioend to @Luckyguy1983 I don't think, from an academic study and investigation perspective, they should have appended the word "toxic" to the exercise because that is for people to determine themselves.
But I'm glad you are thinking along the right lines of investigation, although I'm not sure where rich privileged white females fit into the hierarchy of oppression.
Presumably Mary Tudor, Queen Victoria, Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great etc all who either executed opponents or built Empires.
Of course there were never any Empires built by Asian or Muslim or African or Latin American nations and slavery was always perpetrated by white men as was the climate destroying industrial revolution which certainly did nothing at all to ease poverty and create wealth. Women and gay men and trans were also subordinated into inferiority by evil patriarchical white males. Woke history teachers should therefore get white boys to stand up with a dunces cap on and walk around the classroom 3 times to be shouted and abused and shamed for the toxic legacy of their ancestors and their unjustified privilege
If this was a few years ago you might have found yourself head of a new online social movement with that approach.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
I think the police are having a go, given the nonsense about "non crime crimes" that has been pushed by politicians. I'll bet both those MPs voted for that.
And they are having a go for the occasions that police officers social media has been used against them.
Thanks for the speculation.
Not really speculation. We know from the Plebgate (and other) stuff that the police are (collectively) vindictive in a rather stupid manner.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
Thank the Lord no one ever shoots their mouth off (figuratively) on PB.
If there were an MP posting on here, I'd assume they'd be pretty cautious. If they weren't, they'd be a numpty.
If they posted on here they'd be a numpty full stop.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
Thank the Lord no one ever shoots their mouth off (figuratively) on PB.
If there were an MP posting on here, I'd assume they'd be pretty cautious. If they weren't, they'd be a numpty.
I had high profile journalists/national treasures in mind.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Monarchy is a Lefty, SJW, socialist institution! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry! Well, consider the following:
1) The hereditary principle: A feature of Lefty dynasties around the world, such as the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Kennedys in the USA, the Benns in the UK, and the Kims in North Korea!
2) Jobs for life: A socialist principle if ever there was one! The monarch is in the job for his or her natural life!
3) Pomp and circumstance: parades and what-not are hallmarks of the old Soviet Red Square military parades, and are still, to this day, a key feature of the Kims' regime in North Korea!
So, my fellow PBers, SJWs or not, I put it to you that Monarchy smacks of Socialism!!
I know you love the gag, but the comparison has always been very laboured.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
Thank the Lord no one ever shoots their mouth off (figuratively) on PB.
If there were an MP posting on here, I'd assume they'd be pretty cautious. If they weren't, they'd be a numpty.
I had high profile journalists/national treasures in mind.
There was one MP who posted here, who probably should have not said some of the things he said. But it didn't come back to bite him.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Fake news.
His only non white daughter-in-law had to leave the country.
Ostensible concern whilst not actually do anything would be pretty left wing?
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
Thank the Lord no one ever shoots their mouth off (figuratively) on PB.
If there were an MP posting on here, I'd assume they'd be pretty cautious. If they weren't, they'd be a numpty.
I had high profile journalists/national treasures in mind.
Well, I can only think of two posters who may have parliamentary aspirations. HYUFD is pretty cautious. The other one, who I think was considering throwing his hat in the ring with Reform the other day, much less so.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Fake news.
His only non white daughter-in-law had to leave the country.
Ostensible concern whilst not actually do anything would be pretty left wing?
Ostensible concern while doing the opposite you mean? - see numerous People's Democratic Republics where the workers are worked to death under threat of punishment.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
I think the police are having a go, given the nonsense about "non crime crimes" that has been pushed by politicians. I'll bet both those MPs voted for that.
And they are having a go for the occasions that police officers social media has been used against them.
Thanks for the speculation.
Not really speculation. We know from the Plebgate (and other) stuff that the police are (collectively) vindictive in a rather stupid manner.
Not the same force presumably, but I think it is true that whilst you'd think the police would not want to waste time with these non-crime crimes, in practice they enjoy the additional power it gives them. A case involving MPs would just be extra fun.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
What's the consequence?
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Russia's invasion was wrong because it was wrong to invade another country, not because it was illegal to do so.
Your example of Germany is about EU law rather than general international law, I believe.
We agree it is wrong to invade another country. Therefore, we have a rule that should govern how countries relate to each other: don’t invade another country. Great, so we’ve just re-invented international law. You are splitting hairs in your refusal to call that a law.
No we are not, we are not governed by rules on how countries relate to each other but by realpolitik and consequences.
Spend on Defence and countries won't attack you. Spend on Lawyers and they can.
So, do you believe might is right, or do you believe it is wrong to invade another country? I believe it is wrong to invade another country.
I believe that it is wrong to invade another country and that the only way to prevent invasions is deterrence.
Deterrence has to be backed up with might.
"Rules" are utterly irrelevant and ignored if deterrence is not there. They have no impact, but deterrence does.
And yet Luxembourg exists. As do loads of other countries that aren't capable of defending themselves from invasion.
Luxembourg was invaded and occupied by the Nazis, so what's your point?
The League of Nations, "rules" etc did not prevent that invasion.
Post WWII Luxembourg was a founding member state of NATO and what has prevented future invasions is that the USA, UK and France have nuclear weapons so nobody dares invade NATO nations anymore.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
Not a Labour chap, but that's pretty much my view.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
Thank the Lord no one ever shoots their mouth off (figuratively) on PB.
If there were an MP posting on here, I'd assume they'd be pretty cautious. If they weren't, they'd be a numpty.
Perhaps, though then again I somehow doubt that tabloid hacks devote a lot of time to scouring the anonymised accounts of people on relatively obscure political websites who might, just might, be MPs making clandestine remarks, and trying to guess whether or not they actually are.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
Thank the Lord no one ever shoots their mouth off (figuratively) on PB.
If there were an MP posting on here, I'd assume they'd be pretty cautious. If they weren't, they'd be a numpty.
If they posted on here they'd be a numpty full stop.
Nick Palmer managed to post largely interestingly on here while an MP without making himself or his party look stupid.
@VP Vance, the Second Lady, and their family have arrived in Paris — where the VP will lead the U.S. delegation to the AI Action Summit before heading to Germany for the Munich Security Conference.
Not a surprise. No politicians are popular, but Davey at least occupies the opposite end of the divisiveness scale to Farage.
Will the LibDems get more councillors than Reform in May. That will be even more impressive if it does happen since a large part of the South East won't have elections.
Not a surprise. No politicians are popular, but Davey at least occupies the opposite end of the divisiveness scale to Farage.
Will the LibDems get more councillors than Reform in May. That will be even more impressive if it does happen since a large part of the South East won't have elections.
You would've thought that Reform would do better given that most of the counties that were meant to be going up for election but have sought deferrals are in Southern England and East Anglia, shifting the centre of gravity of the poll northwards. But it should also be a good test of Reform's ability to stand suitable candidates and get out the vote.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
Thank the Lord no one ever shoots their mouth off (figuratively) on PB.
If there were an MP posting on here, I'd assume they'd be pretty cautious. If they weren't, they'd be a numpty.
If they posted on here they'd be a numpty full stop.
Nick Palmer managed to post largely interestingly on here while an MP without making himself or his party look stupid.
Not according to some PBers, who used to lay into him on a regular basis. And now hero worship him after the story of Switzerland escapade.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Monarchy is a Lefty, SJW, socialist institution! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry! Well, consider the following:
1) The hereditary principle: A feature of Lefty dynasties around the world, such as the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Kennedys in the USA, the Benns in the UK, and the Kims in North Korea!
2) Jobs for life: A socialist principle if ever there was one! The monarch is in the job for his or her natural life!
3) Pomp and circumstance: parades and what-not are hallmarks of the old Soviet Red Square military parades, and are still, to this day, a key feature of the Kims' regime in North Korea!
So, my fellow PBers, SJWs or not, I put it to you that Monarchy smacks of Socialism!!
No as I told you then and tell you now monarchy is the essence of Toryism, socialism is state controlled control of most of the economy.
Hence the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics removed its monarchy and Tsars and replaced them with Lenin and Stalin
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Fake news.
His only non white daughter-in-law had to leave the country.
Only because she and her husband wanted the glamour without all the dull royal visits and press intrusion but their children remain 6th and 7th in line to the throne
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Fake news.
His only non white daughter-in-law had to leave the country.
To be fair, a) she chose to rather than had to, and b) her race was rather less material to the matter than the fact she is a pain in the arse of the first water.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
contains this remarkable short passage, which is really impossible to characterise:
The inside of our planet is an extremely mysterious place. The core is about 4,000 miles from the Earth's surface and, despite best efforts, scientists have so far been unable to reach it.
but conveys a sort of innocence - perhaps the attempt is with a spade or a largish digger - which would immediately make sense to my six year old grandson.
But something about it is mysteriously very funny.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
Thank the Lord no one ever shoots their mouth off (figuratively) on PB.
If there were an MP posting on here, I'd assume they'd be pretty cautious. If they weren't, they'd be a numpty.
If they posted on here they'd be a numpty full stop.
Nick Palmer managed to post largely interestingly on here while an MP without making himself or his party look stupid.
Not a surprise. No politicians are popular, but Davey at least occupies the opposite end of the divisiveness scale to Farage.
Will the LibDems get more councillors than Reform in May. That will be even more impressive if it does happen since a large part of the South East won't have elections.
You would've thought that Reform would do better given that most of the counties that were meant to be going up for election but have sought deferrals are in Southern England and East Anglia, shifting the centre of gravity of the poll northwards. But it should also be a good test of Reform's ability to stand suitable candidates and get out the vote.
Essex and Norfolk aren't up now where Reform would have hoped to make big gains from Labour and the Tories but then neither are Surrey and Hampshire where the LDs were hoping for big gains from the Tories
Preston v Burnley Villa v Cardiff Doncaster/Palace v Millwall Man UTD v Fulham Toon v Brighton Bournemouth v Wolves City v Plymouth Exeter/Forest v Ipswich.
"The oil tanker "Koala" which sank yesterday in the Russian port of Ust-Luga was possibly mined. This reports the Russian TG channel "Baza".
At the moment, no explosives were found, but search dogs are still searching the ship. However, investigators found three holes in the tanker's hull near the engine room.
The tanker is currently at the third berth in the seaport in Ust-Luga and holds 130,000 tons of fuel oil."
Not a surprise. No politicians are popular, but Davey at least occupies the opposite end of the divisiveness scale to Farage.
Arguably Davey bears as much responsibility for Brexit as Farage. Had the Lib Dems honoured their manifesto pledge in 2007 and voted for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, there were enough votes on the Labour side for a referendum that one might have been held. Instead, he led a highly-staged and disingenuous flounce of the Lib Dems in parliament, superficially at the fact that no referendum on EU membership as a whole was being offered - though really as a way for the Lib Dems not to have to vote against more Europe. And as a result Gordon Brown was able to go and sign Lisbon
Had he not done so, I would argue Lisbon would have been kicked into the long grass, the ratchet would have come to a halt, and we would be left with a Europe there was far less opposition to - here or elsewhere in the continent. We would nit have Brexited.
I would argue Davey is actually more consequential in bringing about Brexit than Farage.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Monarchy is a Lefty, SJW, socialist institution! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry! Well, consider the following:
1) The hereditary principle: A feature of Lefty dynasties around the world, such as the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Kennedys in the USA, the Benns in the UK, and the Kims in North Korea!
2) Jobs for life: A socialist principle if ever there was one! The monarch is in the job for his or her natural life!
3) Pomp and circumstance: parades and what-not are hallmarks of the old Soviet Red Square military parades, and are still, to this day, a key feature of the Kims' regime in North Korea!
So, my fellow PBers, SJWs or not, I put it to you that Monarchy smacks of Socialism!!
No as I told you then and tell you now monarchy is the essence of Toryism, socialism is state controlled control of most of the economy.
Hence the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics removed its monarchy and Tsars and replaced them with Lenin and Stalin
“Russia still the danger?”
“We are all very worried about her.”
“We always were in my day, and in Dizzy’s before me. Is there still a Tsar?”
“Yes, but he is not a Romanoff. It’s another family. He is much more powerful, and much more despotic.”
What is going to become huge is the issue of the relation of POTUS, the government of USA and 'the rule of law' as traditionally understood - ie governments have to obey the law, including obeying court orders, as in the UK.
This today from the BBC is a useful summary. See what Vance raises:
A question is going to be - and there are likely to be some massive ground breaking bits of litigation - as the POTUS has recently acquired gigantic immunities from SCOTUS, does this extend to him by fiat being able to break the law (in the conventional sense - eg making an order which looks illegal on its face, whuich he has) and because of his immunities further then require it by fiat to be enforced by the courts.
I’m don’t know Badenoch is being called a “policy wonk”. There’s no evidence at all for that. At least in terms of how she presents, she comes across as a little dim.
I also keep hearing she is lazy. She certainly achieved nothing at all while holding some key ministries under Sunak.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Fake news.
His only non white daughter-in-law had to leave the country.
Ostensible concern whilst not actually do anything would be pretty left wing?
Ostensible concern while doing the opposite you mean? - see numerous People's Democratic Republics where the workers are worked to death under threat of punishment.
As a Labour chap, I have to say I'm pretty furious about the behaviour of these two MPs (Gwynne and Ryan) who have been suspended. How thick are they not to realise that their private 'banter' in such a large group may well reach the public domain? People really should keep offensive thoughts, even if they think they're being funny, in their head.
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
Thank the Lord no one ever shoots their mouth off (figuratively) on PB.
If there were an MP posting on here, I'd assume they'd be pretty cautious. If they weren't, they'd be a numpty.
If they posted on here they'd be a numpty full stop.
Nick Palmer managed to post largely interestingly on here while an MP without making himself or his party look stupid.
Was the threesome tale told while he was an MP or not ?
The suspension of a second Labour MP, and the fact that the police are investigating the first for a suspected “non-criminal hate incident” is just sad.
Britain needs to get a grip of itself. It makes Musk’s pathetic attacks on its commitment to free speech as half-credible.
contains this remarkable short passage, which is really impossible to characterise:
The inside of our planet is an extremely mysterious place. The core is about 4,000 miles from the Earth's surface and, despite best efforts, scientists have so far been unable to reach it.
but conveys a sort of innocence - perhaps the attempt is with a spade or a largish digger - which would immediately make sense to my six year old grandson.
But something about it is mysteriously very funny.
@viewcode Do you reckon we should be trying to drill to, or reach, the core of the earth ?
Not a surprise. No politicians are popular, but Davey at least occupies the opposite end of the divisiveness scale to Farage.
Arguably Davey bears as much responsibility for Brexit as Farage. Had the Lib Dems honoured their manifesto pledge in 2007 and voted for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, there were enough votes on the Labour side for a referendum that one might have been held. Instead, he led a highly-staged and disingenuous flounce of the Lib Dems in parliament, superficially at the fact that no referendum on EU membership as a whole was being offered - though really as a way for the Lib Dems not to have to vote against more Europe. And as a result Gordon Brown was able to go and sign Lisbon
Had he not done so, I would argue Lisbon would have been kicked into the long grass, the ratchet would have come to a halt, and we would be left with a Europe there was far less opposition to - here or elsewhere in the continent. We would nit have Brexited.
I would argue Davey is actually more consequential in bringing about Brexit than Farage.
There is no opposition to the Lisbon Treaty on the continent, and very little meaningful opposition to EU membership, for that matter. The EU opponents folded upon proximity to power, or died.
Brexiteers need to start taking responsibility for their decisions, not blaming bloomin' Ed Davey.
Not a surprise. No politicians are popular, but Davey at least occupies the opposite end of the divisiveness scale to Farage.
Arguably Davey bears as much responsibility for Brexit as Farage. Had the Lib Dems honoured their manifesto pledge in 2007 and voted for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, there were enough votes on the Labour side for a referendum that one might have been held. Instead, he led a highly-staged and disingenuous flounce of the Lib Dems in parliament, superficially at the fact that no referendum on EU membership as a whole was being offered - though really as a way for the Lib Dems not to have to vote against more Europe. And as a result Gordon Brown was able to go and sign Lisbon
Had he not done so, I would argue Lisbon would have been kicked into the long grass, the ratchet would have come to a halt, and we would be left with a Europe there was far less opposition to - here or elsewhere in the continent. We would nit have Brexited.
I would argue Davey is actually more consequential in bringing about Brexit than Farage.
No, the blame for Brexit is solely on those who voted for it. They had agency.
It's interesting though that even Leavers cast around for blame, not point at the sunlit uplands.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Monarchy is a Lefty, SJW, socialist institution! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry! Well, consider the following:
1) The hereditary principle: A feature of Lefty dynasties around the world, such as the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Kennedys in the USA, the Benns in the UK, and the Kims in North Korea!
2) Jobs for life: A socialist principle if ever there was one! The monarch is in the job for his or her natural life!
3) Pomp and circumstance: parades and what-not are hallmarks of the old Soviet Red Square military parades, and are still, to this day, a key feature of the Kims' regime in North Korea!
So, my fellow PBers, SJWs or not, I put it to you that Monarchy smacks of Socialism!!
No as I told you then and tell you now monarchy is the essence of Toryism, socialism is state controlled control of most of the economy.
Hence the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics removed its monarchy and Tsars and replaced them with Lenin and Stalin
And I told you: Your Monarchism makes you a Socialist!
You do have to wonder how many in public office worry about some comments they have made on what's app in the past
As I posted earlier; NEVER write it down. You might say it, but DON'T write it. My opinion of one junior female trainee was held by my my colleagues to be 'unacceptable' but I NEVER WROTE IT DOWN.
"Unacceptable" in the case of the director of SSEES at UCL - who told one woman protestor "no man would want to touch you" after she'd told him not to touch her, and who pushed another woman protestor - seems to be meaning "without serious repercussions". He admitted his behaviour was "unacceptable" in his apology, but according to him it was out of line with his values. Why anyone should expect him not to act out of line with his values again isn't clear. He could easily have said "I'm not going to touch you. Now will you please leave."
He has stepped down from his role at least until the end of term.
I’m don’t know Badenoch is being called a “policy wonk”. There’s no evidence at all for that. At least in terms of how she presents, she comes across as a little dim.
I also keep hearing she is lazy. She certainly achieved nothing at all while holding some key ministries under Sunak.
The question is when, not if, she goes.
Maybe, but it raises existential problems. Is it possible that the Tories are finished beyond repair for three overlapping reasons:
The present leader isn't the answer. To change the leader, basically repeating the self destruct pattern starting with Cameron's disastrous resignation in 2016, will destroy the party. No alternative leader in sight is close to being good enough to meet the disunited but joint challenge of Davey, Starmer and Farage.
"The oil tanker "Koala" which sank yesterday in the Russian port of Ust-Luga was possibly mined. This reports the Russian TG channel "Baza".
At the moment, no explosives were found, but search dogs are still searching the ship. However, investigators found three holes in the tanker's hull near the engine room.
The tanker is currently at the third berth in the seaport in Ust-Luga and holds 130,000 tons of fuel oil."
During WWII, limpet mines that were activated by water flow were used.
On several occasions these detonated in harbour. The flow over the hull from slowly turning the propellers at engine start up was enough to set them off.
Not a surprise. No politicians are popular, but Davey at least occupies the opposite end of the divisiveness scale to Farage.
Arguably Davey bears as much responsibility for Brexit as Farage. Had the Lib Dems honoured their manifesto pledge in 2007 and voted for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, there were enough votes on the Labour side for a referendum that one might have been held. Instead, he led a highly-staged and disingenuous flounce of the Lib Dems in parliament, superficially at the fact that no referendum on EU membership as a whole was being offered - though really as a way for the Lib Dems not to have to vote against more Europe. And as a result Gordon Brown was able to go and sign Lisbon
Had he not done so, I would argue Lisbon would have been kicked into the long grass, the ratchet would have come to a halt, and we would be left with a Europe there was far less opposition to - here or elsewhere in the continent. We would nit have Brexited.
I would argue Davey is actually more consequential in bringing about Brexit than Farage.
Davey is the political catastrophe of our times. It's only because all the others have been conducting a fireworks-going-wrong show that this hasn't been noticed.
IANAE on the Chagos Islands but the facts I have gleaned are that:
They once belonged to the French. We took them off the French in 1814 after Waterloo. For most of the 18th and 19th centuries we controlled them from Mauritius, a place that had no historical connection with them whatsoever. In the 1960s the Americans wanted a mid Indian Ocean base and chose Diego Garcia. In 1965 we, somewhat shamefully, kicked the remnants of the French, some African slaves and sundry others off the islands so the Americans could have that base without interference. Most of their descendants now live in the UK. At the same time we broke the administrative link between Mauritius and the Chagos islands. In 1968 Mauritius became independent of the UK. In 2021 the UN International Tribunal for the law of the Sea said that we should hand them back to Mauritius and that we had no sovereignty over them, despite controlling them since 1814. We are now trying to come to a "deal" by which we pay Mauritius money to take them off our hands without upsetting the Americans.
To describe the UN Tribunal decision as bizarre is to understate matters by several orders of magnitude. Mauritius never had any control of the Chagos when it was independent, either before we conquered it or at the time of their independence in 1968. If the UN is not going to recognise sovereignty after 210 years we are going to need a lot of new maps. The idea that we should pay anything to anybody for this is...words fail me.
The only real surprise, here, is that the UN is still perceived as a pure neutral arbiter.
It's about as clean as FIFA.
Nah, they make FIFA look good.
The UN Tribunal laid out their legal reasoning. If you think their answer is wrong, can you explain why with respect to the legal precedents?
See DavidL's post at 20:27
We should be invoking the legal precedence of Arkell v Pressdram to the Tribunal.
We could, as nation, make a political choice to do that. One can argue for or against that. My point is that the decision was not weird or biased or unprecedented. It concords with international law.
International law is a bad joke.
We should say piss off and move on.
That kind of behaviour is not without consequence. The question is whether doing so in this instance would have practical consequences we do not want to face. The government have done a poor job communicating those practical consequences, being a bit vague or advancing some scenarios which don't seem very likely, though a case is capable of being made at least, and the sheer rapid persistance to get it over the line has caused even some opponents to wonder if there is something to it (even if they are not yet convinced).
What's the consequence?
Countries tell "international law" to piss off all the time. As they bloody well should, its domestic law we should respect.
Russia's invasion was wrong because it was wrong to invade another country, not because it was illegal to do so.
Your example of Germany is about EU law rather than general international law, I believe.
We agree it is wrong to invade another country. Therefore, we have a rule that should govern how countries relate to each other: don’t invade another country. Great, so we’ve just re-invented international law. You are splitting hairs in your refusal to call that a law.
No we are not, we are not governed by rules on how countries relate to each other but by realpolitik and consequences.
Spend on Defence and countries won't attack you. Spend on Lawyers and they can.
So, do you believe might is right, or do you believe it is wrong to invade another country? I believe it is wrong to invade another country.
I believe that it is wrong to invade another country and that the only way to prevent invasions is deterrence.
Deterrence has to be backed up with might.
"Rules" are utterly irrelevant and ignored if deterrence is not there. They have no impact, but deterrence does.
Ukraine has international law on its side, which is nice to have.
But, without the courage of its soldiers, and Western aid, it would not help much.
contains this remarkable short passage, which is really impossible to characterise:
The inside of our planet is an extremely mysterious place. The core is about 4,000 miles from the Earth's surface and, despite best efforts, scientists have so far been unable to reach it.
but conveys a sort of innocence - perhaps the attempt is with a spade or a largish digger - which would immediately make sense to my six year old grandson.
But something about it is mysteriously very funny.
@viewcode Do you reckon we should be trying to drill to, or reach, the core of the earth ?
Put it this way.
If the Earth were an apple, so far we haven't drilled through the skin.
Besides, there's an awful lot we've been able to infer. Actually drilling down to the core (if it were possible) would spoil all the fun. Like looking in the back of the maths book for the answers.
The King has made a rare joint visit with Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner to give them a personal tour of the vast new-build development in Cornwall that he inspired.
The visit to Nansledan, a 540-acre extension of Newquay, built on Duchy of Cornwall land, was arranged following multiple discussions about housing between the King and Sir Keir at various meetings.
Sir Keir expressed an interest in seeing the development and so the King offered to show him around, alongside Ms Rayner, the Housing Secretary.
It is rare, if not unprecedented, for the monarch to be accompanied on an official public engagement by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
That the King would use the occasion to arrest the PM and Deputy PM and seize power?
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism - Housing - Concern for minorities - Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...) - Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
Monarchy is a Lefty, SJW, socialist institution! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry! Well, consider the following:
1) The hereditary principle: A feature of Lefty dynasties around the world, such as the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Kennedys in the USA, the Benns in the UK, and the Kims in North Korea!
2) Jobs for life: A socialist principle if ever there was one! The monarch is in the job for his or her natural life!
3) Pomp and circumstance: parades and what-not are hallmarks of the old Soviet Red Square military parades, and are still, to this day, a key feature of the Kims' regime in North Korea!
So, my fellow PBers, SJWs or not, I put it to you that Monarchy smacks of Socialism!!
No as I told you then and tell you now monarchy is the essence of Toryism, socialism is state controlled control of most of the economy.
Hence the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics removed its monarchy and Tsars and replaced them with Lenin and Stalin
Russia was already a Republic before the October 2017 Revolution that led to the establishment of the USSR.
Not a surprise. No politicians are popular, but Davey at least occupies the opposite end of the divisiveness scale to Farage.
Arguably Davey bears as much responsibility for Brexit as Farage. Had the Lib Dems honoured their manifesto pledge in 2007 and voted for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, there were enough votes on the Labour side for a referendum that one might have been held. Instead, he led a highly-staged and disingenuous flounce of the Lib Dems in parliament, superficially at the fact that no referendum on EU membership as a whole was being offered - though really as a way for the Lib Dems not to have to vote against more Europe. And as a result Gordon Brown was able to go and sign Lisbon
Had he not done so, I would argue Lisbon would have been kicked into the long grass, the ratchet would have come to a halt, and we would be left with a Europe there was far less opposition to - here or elsewhere in the continent. We would nit have Brexited.
I would argue Davey is actually more consequential in bringing about Brexit than Farage.
No, the blame for Brexit is solely on those who voted for it. They had agency.
It's interesting though that even Leavers cast around for blame, not point at the sunlit uplands.
But we voted for it because the Europe on offer was not the Europe we might have wanted. It was increasingly centralised, decreasingly accountable. Now I've been a leaver since long before it was unfashionable - late 90s, I'd say - but, given a Europe without the Lisbon treaty, where ever closer union had stalled, would I have taken the risk of voting Leave in 2016? (I don't think we'd have even got to a referendum without the Lisbon treaty, but let's suppose we did). Probably I wouldn't. Probably the 'now or never' wouldn't have been so urgent. The blame lies solely with those who let membership of the EU become so unappealing. For the record, while I wavered before the vote, in hindsight I am convinced leave was the right move under the circumstances and think Britain is better off out.
Not a surprise. No politicians are popular, but Davey at least occupies the opposite end of the divisiveness scale to Farage.
Arguably Davey bears as much responsibility for Brexit as Farage. Had the Lib Dems honoured their manifesto pledge in 2007 and voted for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, there were enough votes on the Labour side for a referendum that one might have been held. Instead, he led a highly-staged and disingenuous flounce of the Lib Dems in parliament, superficially at the fact that no referendum on EU membership as a whole was being offered - though really as a way for the Lib Dems not to have to vote against more Europe. And as a result Gordon Brown was able to go and sign Lisbon
Had he not done so, I would argue Lisbon would have been kicked into the long grass, the ratchet would have come to a halt, and we would be left with a Europe there was far less opposition to - here or elsewhere in the continent. We would nit have Brexited.
I would argue Davey is actually more consequential in bringing about Brexit than Farage.
Davey is the political catastrophe of our times. It's only because all the others have been conducting a fireworks-going-wrong show that this hasn't been noticed.
But I'd have to give the laurels to Farage.
In a decade that has given us Johnson, Corbyn, Truss, Swinson and Sturgeon, that's fighting talk.
'Only 41% of 18-27 year olds are proud to be British. That is down from 80% in 2004.
Our education system is broken' says Farage. Vows to end poison from universities and ensure young people are taught Britain is a great country if Reform get into power https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1888943931154427910
contains this remarkable short passage, which is really impossible to characterise:
The inside of our planet is an extremely mysterious place. The core is about 4,000 miles from the Earth's surface and, despite best efforts, scientists have so far been unable to reach it.
but conveys a sort of innocence - perhaps the attempt is with a spade or a largish digger - which would immediately make sense to my six year old grandson.
But something about it is mysteriously very funny.
@viewcode Do you reckon we should be trying to drill to, or reach, the core of the earth ?
With current technology sadly impossible. We can't even get the relatively short distance through the crust.
'Only 41% of 18-27 year olds are proud to be British. That is down from 80% in 2004.
Our education system is broken' says Farage. Vows to end poison from universities and ensure young people are taught Britain is a great country if Reform get into power https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1888943931154427910
Not a surprise. No politicians are popular, but Davey at least occupies the opposite end of the divisiveness scale to Farage.
Arguably Davey bears as much responsibility for Brexit as Farage. Had the Lib Dems honoured their manifesto pledge in 2007 and voted for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, there were enough votes on the Labour side for a referendum that one might have been held. Instead, he led a highly-staged and disingenuous flounce of the Lib Dems in parliament, superficially at the fact that no referendum on EU membership as a whole was being offered - though really as a way for the Lib Dems not to have to vote against more Europe. And as a result Gordon Brown was able to go and sign Lisbon
Had he not done so, I would argue Lisbon would have been kicked into the long grass, the ratchet would have come to a halt, and we would be left with a Europe there was far less opposition to - here or elsewhere in the continent. We would nit have Brexited.
I would argue Davey is actually more consequential in bringing about Brexit than Farage.
Davey is the political catastrophe of our times. It's only because all the others have been conducting a fireworks-going-wrong show that this hasn't been noticed.
But I'd have to give the laurels to Farage.
It would be interesting (is it possible) to go back to the pb.com of 13 Jan 2009 (I looked it up, it isn't etched on my mind) to see the reaction on here to the debate and Davey's antics.
@SenatorCollins slams the Trump admin’s NIH cuts as “poorly conceived” and says she has called RFK to “to express my strong opposition to these arbitrary cuts in funding for vital research.” She says he promised to “re-examine this initiative” if confirmed as HHS secretary. https://x.com/sahilkapur/status/1889027156929310800
Comments
Would we actually care? Would anyone? As far as is known, the King has better left wing credentials than the current government.
- Environmentalism
- Housing
- Concern for minorities
- Hereditary transfer of power (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
- Wearing lots of bling for military parades (See numerous People's Democratic Republics...)
His only non white daughter-in-law had to leave the country.
Maybe Trump will seek the same subservience
Which he, being veggie, didn't eat!
The mole hunt continues.
Deterrence has to be backed up with might.
"Rules" are utterly irrelevant and ignored if deterrence is not there. They have no impact, but deterrence does.
This is a line the forces of resistance as it were need to kick back at Musk says Bill Kristol on Bulwark. People don't want that.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/1419766#Comment_1419766
Monarchy is a Lefty, SJW, socialist institution! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry! Well, consider the following:
1) The hereditary principle: A feature of Lefty dynasties around the world, such as the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Kennedys in the USA, the Benns in the UK, and the Kims in North Korea!
2) Jobs for life: A socialist principle if ever there was one! The monarch is in the job for his or her natural life!
3) Pomp and circumstance: parades and what-not are hallmarks of the old Soviet Red Square military parades, and are still, to this day, a key feature of the Kims' regime in North Korea!
So, my fellow PBers, SJWs or not, I put it to you that Monarchy smacks of Socialism!!
Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshalls are "protected" by the USA
Nauru is "protected" by Aus
Samoa is "protected" by NZ
Kiribati is "protected" by both Aus and NZ
That works both ways, though. The Manc Groupchatters were all pretty stupid. But the Mail was pompous and judgemental to make it their biggest story two days running.
If the worst thing we said (let alone thought) was on the front page of the papers every day, who could stand?
Which part of "group chat" did these people have trouble with?
And, for the record, the idea that it's any business of the police is nonsense, though I gather that they felt they had to respond to a number of complaints. The police should be able to say 'thanks, but no thanks - no further action'.
YearsDays of Solitude for Kemi.And they are having a go for the occasions that police officers social media has been used against them.
The League of Nations, "rules" etc did not prevent that invasion.
Post WWII Luxembourg was a founding member state of NATO and what has prevented future invasions is that the USA, UK and France have nuclear weapons so nobody dares invade NATO nations anymore.
They're protected by our deterrence, not rules.
That proves my point.
Rapid Response 47
@RapidResponse47
@VP Vance, the Second Lady, and their family have arrived in Paris — where the VP will lead the U.S. delegation to the AI Action Summit before heading to Germany for the Munich Security Conference.
https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1888942202174243327
That will be even more impressive if it does happen since a large part of the South East won't have elections.
And now hero worship him after the story of Switzerland escapade.
There's a moral in there somewhere.
Hence the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics removed its monarchy and Tsars and replaced them with Lenin and Stalin
If we'd done nuclear quicker, it would be another way we could have saved money.
Stupid Tories.
Subsidies halved for controversial Drax power station
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyplj7dkw2o
Still, the annual savings are not inconsiderable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gx37ky3gyo
contains this remarkable short passage, which is really impossible to characterise:
The inside of our planet is an extremely mysterious place. The core is about 4,000 miles from the Earth's surface and, despite best efforts, scientists have so far been unable to reach it.
but conveys a sort of innocence - perhaps the attempt is with a spade or a largish digger - which would immediately make sense to my six year old grandson.
But something about it is mysteriously very funny.
https://www.statsforlefties.com/
https://nitter.poast.org/leftiestats/
https://x.com/leftiestats/status/1888943504191000722
Preston v Burnley
Villa v Cardiff
Doncaster/Palace v Millwall
Man UTD v Fulham
Toon v Brighton
Bournemouth v Wolves
City v Plymouth
Exeter/Forest v Ipswich.
At the moment, no explosives were found, but search dogs are still searching the ship. However, investigators found three holes in the tanker's hull near the engine room.
The tanker is currently at the third berth in the seaport in Ust-Luga and holds 130,000 tons of fuel oil."
https://x.com/Tendar/status/1888892209313034367
Had he not done so, I would argue Lisbon would have been kicked into the long grass, the ratchet would have come to a halt, and we would be left with a Europe there was far less opposition to - here or elsewhere in the continent. We would nit have Brexited.
I would argue Davey is actually more consequential in bringing about Brexit than Farage.
“Russia still the danger?”
“We are all very worried about her.”
“We always were in my day, and in Dizzy’s before me. Is there still a Tsar?”
“Yes, but he is not a Romanoff. It’s another family. He is much more powerful, and much more despotic.”
This today from the BBC is a useful summary. See what Vance raises:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo
A question is going to be - and there are likely to be some massive ground breaking bits of litigation - as the POTUS has recently acquired gigantic immunities from SCOTUS, does this extend to him by fiat being able to break the law (in the conventional sense - eg making an order which looks illegal on its face, whuich he has) and because of his immunities further then require it by fiat to be enforced by the courts.
Which would be a proper Grade A fascist state.
There’s no evidence at all for that.
At least in terms of how she presents, she comes across as a little dim.
I also keep hearing she is lazy.
She certainly achieved nothing at all while holding some key ministries under Sunak.
The question is when, not if, she goes.
Not that is made him look stupid.
Britain needs to get a grip of itself.
It makes Musk’s pathetic attacks on its commitment to free speech as half-credible.
Brexiteers need to start taking responsibility for their decisions, not blaming bloomin' Ed Davey.
It's interesting though that even Leavers cast around for blame, not point at the sunlit uplands.
He has stepped down from his role at least until the end of term.
Is it possible that the Tories are finished beyond repair for three overlapping reasons:
The present leader isn't the answer.
To change the leader, basically repeating the self destruct pattern starting with Cameron's disastrous resignation in 2016, will destroy the party.
No alternative leader in sight is close to being good enough to meet the disunited but joint challenge of Davey, Starmer and Farage.
On several occasions these detonated in harbour. The flow over the hull from slowly turning the propellers at engine start up was enough to set them off.
But I'd have to give the laurels to Farage.
But, without the courage of its soldiers, and Western aid, it would not help much.
If the Earth were an apple, so far we haven't drilled through the skin.
Besides, there's an awful lot we've been able to infer. Actually drilling down to the core (if it were possible) would spoil all the fun. Like looking in the back of the maths book for the answers.
The blame lies solely with those who let membership of the EU become so unappealing.
For the record, while I wavered before the vote, in hindsight I am convinced leave was the right move under the circumstances and think Britain is better off out.
Our education system is broken' says Farage. Vows to end poison from universities and ensure young people are taught Britain is a great country if Reform get into power
https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1888943931154427910
https://www.heritageconcorde.com/braniff-airways-concorde-operations
Farage will not be UK PM
@SenatorCollins slams the Trump admin’s NIH cuts as “poorly conceived” and says she has called RFK to “to express my strong opposition to these arbitrary cuts in funding for vital research.” She says he promised to “re-examine this initiative” if confirmed as HHS secretary.
https://x.com/sahilkapur/status/1889027156929310800
Just pitiful stuff from her.