"Today I heard, ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited. Well, you’ve been there for three years. You should have ended it — three years. You should have never been there. You should have never started it. You should have made a deal.
We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law in Ukraine, where the leader in Ukraine — I mean I hate to say it, but he’s down at 4% approval rating — and the country’s been blown to smithereens,”
So wages are beating prices (FACT) but people all say the opposite. It makes you wonder what the point of people is. I mean, seriously. What's the point of them?
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Is there anyone on PB, apart from you, who supports Reform for instance? Given Reform are polling about 25% their supporters need some representation to ensure balanced posts
I wonder what PB would have been like before the internet. Stalin derangement syndrome, helpful idiots and fifth columnists arguing the toss about tractor stats.
Sorry to see @Sandpit take a break. A different view, even though I don't agree on that many things with him these days.
For a diversion. Yesterday we were talking about the Bismarck wreck having lost it's gun turrets.
Gun turrets were also involved in the wreck of HMS Victoria, a battlecruiser which sank off the coast of Lebanon in 1893 - and is one of a very few wrecks which is stuck vertically in the seabed (mud), with the stern poking up 100 ft or more. It had an enormous turret that took it straight down, after a collision caused by Admiral Tryon, trying too hard. He went down with the ship and ~350 others. It had a ram bow which helped it keep together.
It reportedly still has one of Nelson's swords on board, but is in about 400ft of water.
OK, so what should I be drinking then, you bellends?
Choose my next beverage for me.
Creme de Menthe Frappe
Also, why are you drinking at 11am?!
I know you've quit your job, but maybe you don't want to dive IMMEDIATELY into alcoholism. I mean, if it's your choice, far enough! - but take a while to choose?
I'm on holiday mate. Been up since 5am with a noisy 2 year old and took my daughter electric jet skiing in the pool at 8am!
PS. Creme de Menthe is disgusting.
How do you electric jet ski in a pool? Don't you run out of pool quite quickly?
Enjoy the holiday!
They are inflatable and go at about 3mph max, so ideally suited for under 7s!
Thanks. Nice and active holiday, with lots of cycling, which is doing me some good.
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Is there anyone on PB, apart from you, who supports Reform for instance? Given Reform are polling about 25% their supporters need some representation to ensure balanced posts
A number of other posts have said they intend to vote Reform, or are Reform curious, although I don't think they reach 25% of the vocal community here.
On the TDS thing. The T is superfluous - people get triggered by various people because of the weaponisation of politics and culture. This is of course the direct intention of the people doing the weaponisation.
Trump is delivering everything I hoped he would and more - his actions continue to veer towards open fascism and his understanding of how stuff works is almost as disconnected from reality as is the same for many of his supporters.
Would the world be better without him? Sure! But he is here and he was elected. So why get het up about him doing the things he was elected to do?
We know that Trump is Mr Flip-Flop (with the emphasis on the latter). Sticking Mandy into the Ambassador role was a master stroke. We can try and dissuade Trump from some of the more damaging international things, and direct our energies into planning for what we need to do if Mandy fails.
I don't care one bit about Trump making a mad comment about who started the war or that Starmer can come over if he wants or anything else. Words - from that man - have no value. Actions matter.
So everyone needs to Calm Down a bit. Some of the comments I get over on YouTube are increasingly showing TDS. We all laughed at the Nazi jokes in the days after the salute thing. They've gone very stale very quickly and when "Swasticar" isn't resonating the people telling the "joke" get apoplectic. And not just on my channel, all over the tinterweb.
I get how impotent some people feel in the face of Trump. But what is the point in howling at the moon?
Sorry to see @Sandpit take a break. A different view, even though I don't agree on that many things with him these days.
For a diversion. Yesterday we were talking about the Bismarck wreck having lost it's gun turrets.
Gun turrets were also involved in the wreck of HMS Victoria, a battlecruiser which sank off the coast of Lebanon in 1893 - and is one of a very few wrecks which is stuck vertically in the seabed (mud), with the stern poking up 100 ft or more. It had an enormous turret that took it straight down, after a collision caused by Admiral Tryon, trying too hard. He went down with the ship and ~350 others. It had a ram bow which helped it keep together.
It reportedly still has one of Nelson's swords on board, but is in about 400ft of water.
He was anoter good diverse voice. Are you guys going to chase every singe non centrist dad into the sea?
He was unable to reconcile supporting Trump and supporting Ukraine. Cognitive dissonance I guess. Didn’t like being challenged on it
It’s a shame I’ve had some good discussions with him but the fact is you can’t support Ukraine and Trump at the same time . Trumps disgraceful comments last night should surely be the last straw for anyone who tries to continue that juggling act .
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
Something else on that web page that is not about solicitorgate but shines a light on another perennial debate is this bit: I had hoped to go to law school, but my plans changed considerably after the birth of my son Jack in January 2003. ... Becoming a father at a young age had a significant effect on me.
23 did not used to be a young age to have children. It might be the secular increase in this age (and not tax or benefits) is responsible for reshaping the age pyramid and turning the retirement system into a ponzi scheme depending on faster and faster immigration.
Age at first birth is now nearly 30 for women, slightly older still for males, but this is only part of the story. It's been going up since about 1970, when it was less than 24 years of age. Obviously this leaves less time to have a big family.
Context for that - life expectancy is up by 10 years from 1970 to 2023, from 71 to 81. According to an ai enquiry, Covid has not reduced that by very much.
OTOH healthy life expectancy is only up from ~61 to ~63.
Which explains where all the extra NHS spending, and government spending generally, is going.
I think there's actually some truth in that (which is why we should all be walking or cycling for any journey under 3-5 miles, but also question the AI number - should have checked mor carefully.
Checking the AI number I quoted with the actual data puts a queston mark over the HALE (Healthy Life Expectancy Number), which the official WHO data puts at ~70 in 2019, having increased from ~67 since 2000 - for the UK, in line with Western Europe.
Blanche talked about the thing that must not be invoked on PB. (Apart from Scottish subsamples, which HYUFD seems to incorporate into his incantations without getting very burnt. Obvs not as potent as before.)
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Is there anyone on PB, apart from you, who supports Reform for instance? Given Reform are polling about 25% their supporters need some representation to ensure balanced posts
I'm sure if Leon supports Reform, other posters will appear that also support Reform
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
I’ve provided a link where he says he “worked as a solicitor” at AG.
It’s not big stuff, of course. Guido’s a muck-raker and scandal-monkey. But it is an offence with strict liability. I guess lawyers don’t like people pretending to be lawyers. Competition or something.
Aye @Foss already provided that link. My bad for missing it.
I’m at a loss as to the issue that pay says “ training contract to become a solicitor” which to me is very, very clear cut - your complaint appears to be if I ignore the “training contract to become” bit he’s claiming to be a solicitor
Linkedin, his own website - it's just weird, a fantasist that seems to have started to believe it himself.
Angels dancing on the head of a pin. My last solicitor was a trainee (under supervision). Was she "acting as a solicitor"? Probably. Would she have described herself as a solicitor? I don't know but have just noticed I already did.
Embarrassing perhaps but only fatal if Starmer is already looking to move Reynolds out, or unless there is a link to an actual scandal like ballsing up a contract.
We have had a proposal from our financial advisor to put some money offshore to defer tax.
Can anyone explain in simple terms why it's worth it? As far as I understand we will end up paying exactly the same amount of tax when it is brought back as we would if it was in UK.
Am I missing something?
You're a socialist whose commitment to your principles is only skin-deep?
A Socialist with a disabled wife whose annual care bill is over £300k per annum. She has a forecast life expectancy of another 12 to 15 year (10 less than before she became a paraplegic).
In order for her to make the most of those years and have sufficient funds. We are exploring options with regards to her negligence settlement.
Wouldn't expect you to care about that mind.
It
Sorry to see this. Just want to check - is it £300k or is that a typo for £30k/annum? Had not realised even complex care could cost that much...
24:7 care needs about 3.5 professionals full time (to cover holidays etc)
Assuming they are on £50k (made up) then that’s £175,000 before you even start talking about medical intervention and products
Experience of elder care... Mediocre residential home £60k pa (from net income) Single carer at home (not really 24 hr) £70k pa
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Is there anyone on PB, apart from you, who supports Reform for instance? Given Reform are polling about 25% their supporters need some representation to ensure balanced posts
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
I’ve provided a link where he says he “worked as a solicitor” at AG.
It’s not big stuff, of course. Guido’s a muck-raker and scandal-monkey. But it is an offence with strict liability. I guess lawyers don’t like people pretending to be lawyers. Competition or something.
Aye @Foss already provided that link. My bad for missing it.
I’m at a loss as to the issue that pay says “ training contract to become a solicitor” which to me is very, very clear cut - your complaint appears to be if I ignore the “training contract to become” bit he’s claiming to be a solicitor
Linkedin, his own website - it's just weird, a fantasist that seems to have started to believe it himself.
Angels dancing on the head of a pin. My last solicitor was a trainee (under supervision). Was she "acting as a solicitor"? Probably. Would she have described herself as a solicitor? I don't know but have just noticed I already did.
Embarrassing perhaps but only fatal if Starmer is already looking to move Reynolds out, or unless there is a link to an actual scandal like ballsing up a contract.
If she's doing the work of a solicitor, charging for oine, and being responsible (together with her employer) for the results, then ...
A lot of jobs have a lengthy training period and one doesn't get full professional qualifications for several years. Often with various grades thereof. One thinks of doctors.
Sorry to see @Sandpit take a break. A different view, even though I don't agree on that many things with him these days.
For a diversion. Yesterday we were talking about the Bismarck wreck having lost it's gun turrets.
Gun turrets were also involved in the wreck of HMS Victoria, a battlecruiser which sank off the coast of Lebanon in 1893 - and is one of a very few wrecks which is stuck vertically in the seabed (mud), with the stern poking up 100 ft or more. It had an enormous turret that took it straight down, after a collision caused by Admiral Tryon, trying too hard. He went down with the ship and ~350 others. It had a ram bow which helped it keep together.
It reportedly still has one of Nelson's swords on board, but is in about 400ft of water.
He was anoter good diverse voice. Are you guys going to chase every singe non centrist dad into the sea?
He was unable to reconcile supporting Trump and supporting Ukraine. Cognitive dissonance I guess. Didn’t like being challenged on it
It’s a shame I’ve had some good discussions with him but the fact is you can’t support Ukraine and Trump at the same time . Trumps disgraceful comments last night should surely be the last straw for anyone who tries to continue that juggling act .
I agree, although was worried he was taking the same road as @Plato_Says
Sorry to see @Sandpit take a break. A different view, even though I don't agree on that many things with him these days.
For a diversion. Yesterday we were talking about the Bismarck wreck having lost it's gun turrets.
Gun turrets were also involved in the wreck of HMS Victoria, a battlecruiser which sank off the coast of Lebanon in 1893 - and is one of a very few wrecks which is stuck vertically in the seabed (mud), with the stern poking up 100 ft or more. It had an enormous turret that took it straight down, after a collision caused by Admiral Tryon, trying too hard. He went down with the ship and ~350 others. It had a ram bow which helped it keep together.
It reportedly still has one of Nelson's swords on board, but is in about 400ft of water.
He was anoter good diverse voice. Are you guys going to chase every singe non centrist dad into the sea?
He was unable to reconcile supporting Trump and supporting Ukraine. Cognitive dissonance I guess. Didn’t like being challenged on it
It’s a shame I’ve had some good discussions with him but the fact is you can’t support Ukraine and Trump at the same time . Trumps disgraceful comments last night should surely be the last straw for anyone who tries to continue that juggling act .
I agree, although was worried he was taking the same road as @Plato_Says
That’s not a good road and something that, if we can stop, we should.
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Is there anyone on PB, apart from you, who supports Reform for instance? Given Reform are polling about 25% their supporters need some representation to ensure balanced posts
Ask the management. It’s probably something I’m Banned from talking about because I’m obviously right and that annoys the midwit dads
Frankly I lose track
It’s hard to see why Felix was banned - Blanche was banned for talking about a topic tse and Rsc2000 are scared about when you look at the impact of the forthcoming internet law and almost anything people will say on that topic (for it ends up with racist comments very quickly)
There do seem to be a lot of right wing snowflakes around. Concerning.
Trump has betrayed Ukraine. He has defied the rule of law. He has sought to subvert democracy. He does not believe in free speech or free trade. His actions run directly contrary to vital UK economic, defence and security interests in a way that we have not seen from a US President in living memory. They know all this. But they cannot compute it. They cannot accept they got him totally wrong and they cannot admit that continuing to back him means taking sides against the UK. Their choice is to put "owning the libs" before their country. And so they lash out.
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Probably not the wisest thing to call the mods wankers.
Like others I didn't know @felix and @BlancheLivermore had been banned. I enjoy their posts.
Also re @Sandpit I enjoy his posts as well. Also I will have a specific post for @Sandpit in about a week so I hope he is still lurking. Its also for @Dura_Ace who will be so livid he will smash his keyboard again after a similar post I made sometime ago.
Sorry to see @Sandpit take a break. A different view, even though I don't agree on that many things with him these days.
For a diversion. Yesterday we were talking about the Bismarck wreck having lost it's gun turrets.
Gun turrets were also involved in the wreck of HMS Victoria, a battlecruiser which sank off the coast of Lebanon in 1893 - and is one of a very few wrecks which is stuck vertically in the seabed (mud), with the stern poking up 100 ft or more. It had an enormous turret that took it straight down, after a collision caused by Admiral Tryon, trying too hard. He went down with the ship and ~350 others. It had a ram bow which helped it keep together.
It reportedly still has one of Nelson's swords on board, but is in about 400ft of water.
Sorry to see @Sandpit take a break. A different view, even though I don't agree on that many things with him these days.
For a diversion. Yesterday we were talking about the Bismarck wreck having lost it's gun turrets.
Gun turrets were also involved in the wreck of HMS Victoria, a battlecruiser which sank off the coast of Lebanon in 1893 - and is one of a very few wrecks which is stuck vertically in the seabed (mud), with the stern poking up 100 ft or more. It had an enormous turret that took it straight down, after a collision caused by Admiral Tryon, trying too hard. He went down with the ship and ~350 others. It had a ram bow which helped it keep together.
It reportedly still has one of Nelson's swords on board, but is in about 400ft of water.
He was anoter good diverse voice. Are you guys going to chase every singe non centrist dad into the sea?
He was unable to reconcile supporting Trump and supporting Ukraine. Cognitive dissonance I guess. Didn’t like being challenged on it
It’s a shame I’ve had some good discussions with him but the fact is you can’t support Ukraine and Trump at the same time . Trumps disgraceful comments last night should surely be the last straw for anyone who tries to continue that juggling act .
I agree, although was worried he was taking the same road as @Plato_Says
That’s not a good road and something that, if we can stop, we should.
I know. I was watching, but he was defensive when challenged by others on his sources. The issue wasn’t what he was posting on here but what he was reading on X and where that was taking him
Sorry to see @Sandpit take a break. A different view, even though I don't agree on that many things with him these days.
For a diversion. Yesterday we were talking about the Bismarck wreck having lost it's gun turrets.
Gun turrets were also involved in the wreck of HMS Victoria, a battlecruiser which sank off the coast of Lebanon in 1893 - and is one of a very few wrecks which is stuck vertically in the seabed (mud), with the stern poking up 100 ft or more. It had an enormous turret that took it straight down, after a collision caused by Admiral Tryon, trying too hard. He went down with the ship and ~350 others. It had a ram bow which helped it keep together.
It reportedly still has one of Nelson's swords on board, but is in about 400ft of water.
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
I’ve provided a link where he says he “worked as a solicitor” at AG.
It’s not big stuff, of course. Guido’s a muck-raker and scandal-monkey. But it is an offence with strict liability. I guess lawyers don’t like people pretending to be lawyers. Competition or something.
Aye @Foss already provided that link. My bad for missing it.
I’m at a loss as to the issue that pay says “ training contract to become a solicitor” which to me is very, very clear cut - your complaint appears to be if I ignore the “training contract to become” bit he’s claiming to be a solicitor
Linkedin, his own website - it's just weird, a fantasist that seems to have started to believe it himself.
Angels dancing on the head of a pin. My last solicitor was a trainee (under supervision). Was she "acting as a solicitor"? Probably. Would she have described herself as a solicitor? I don't know but have just noticed I already did.
Embarrassing perhaps but only fatal if Starmer is already looking to move Reynolds out, or unless there is a link to an actual scandal like ballsing up a contract.
The laws are there to stop people who are not solicitors offering legal services whilst claiming to be a solicitor when they are not.
As far as I can see this is not something Reynolds has done, ever? He has said he “worked as a solicitor” which is true is it not? He was doing the work of a solicitor whilst being a trainee.
The whole thing seems to be a lot of fuss about nothing.
This is were the 'anti-woke' agenda has been heading for some time: not just against woke, but against women, and against anyone who dares to be different.
Thus ensuring you double-down against it, turn up the volume of your hyper-liberalism, further fuelling polarisation and, in your everything or nothing duel, risk losing everything. Including losing liberalism itself.
See where this ends? See how important it is to moderate it?
Of course you don't and won't. Not a bit of it.
How is not automatically blaming the women 'hyper-liberalism' ?
That's what I'm commenting on. The way when anything like this happens, certain people look for any woman to blame. It happens time and time again with incidents. Often followed by some guff about DEI.
Sometimes a woman might be to blame; but it's the automatic "Oh my God it's a woman's fault!" that is indefensible.
It's offensive, wrong, and dickish. But if you seek knobbish views out you will find them.
Which you will because, for you, this is about confirmation bias and finding any reason possible to dismiss the (very real and serious) concerns about Woke and its overreach.
This idiotic guy and you. You both need each other.
I don't usually agree with you Casino, but I'm with you on this. Why quote some random anonymous arsehole on twitter? it's stupid, annoying, counter-productive and just helps promote said random anonymous arsehole.
Reform UK voters are much more likely to have a positive view of Donald Trump than other voters, slightly more likely to have a positive view of Vladimir Putin, and less likely to have a positive view of Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Donald Trump - net favourability scores Lib Dem: -84 Labour: -82 Conservative: -40 Reform UK: +38
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Having looked at this mornings posts I can see why @Sandpit left - @JosiasJessop was being an annoying prat on a topic Sandpit cares about
A nonsense take. Sorry.
Disagree. I usually like @JosiasJessop but he does have a predilection for making it personal when it's something he really cares about that stirs his emotions.
Which is uncalled for.
When called out for it, he then doubles down, rather than apologising or letting it slide, which shows a real weakness in character, not a strength.
Reform UK voters are much more likely to have a positive view of Donald Trump than other voters, slightly more likely to have a positive view of Vladimir Putin, and less likely to have a positive view of Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Donald Trump - net favourability scores Lib Dem: -84 Labour: -82 Conservative: -40 Reform UK: +38
Reform UK voters are much more likely to have a positive view of Donald Trump than other voters, slightly more likely to have a positive view of Vladimir Putin, and less likely to have a positive view of Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Donald Trump - net favourability scores Lib Dem: -84 Labour: -82 Conservative: -40 Reform UK: +38
That Volodymyr Zelenskyy figure is beyond strange, it’s almost like their source of news and worldview is based on anti Ukraine propaganda
The US has a formidable intelligence gathering but there seems to be a block between the sender and the receiver. IoW comments on the Saudi talks.
Many recent Russian statements show that Putin remains uninterested in engaging in good faith negotiations and retains his objective of destroying the Ukrainian state while the Kremlin has offered no public indication that it would materially compromise. Kremlin officials have repeatedly denied Ukraine's sovereignty over its internationally recognized 1991 borders and the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government.[4] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov most recently claimed on February 16 that Russia adjusted its stance on potential talks with Ukraine due to Ukraine's alleged "deficit" of sovereignty.[5] Kremlin officials, including Putin, have promoted false narratives that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is "illegitimate" as part of efforts to claim that Zelensky does not have the authority to negotiate with Russia or that Russia does not have to honor any agreements that Zelensky may sign in the future.[6] Putin and other Russian officials have also demanded that Ukraine cede additional territory in eastern and southern Ukraine to Russia while denying that Russia will make any territorial concessions of its own.[7]
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Having looked at this mornings posts I can see why @Sandpit left - @JosiasJessop was being an annoying prat on a topic Sandpit cares about
I deeply disapprove of folk asking for other folk to be banned (unlike at least one person on here moaning about banning), however Sandpit left off his own accord. Convenient that the next few months will be intensely uncomfortable for someone who afaIcs genuinely supports Ukraine but who is also relentlessly uncritical of Trump.
Ah, I see @Sandpit was chased away by the anti-Trump loons, led by Sofa Sargeant, Royal Autistic Regiment, @JosiasJessop
Unsurprising
"Anti Trump loons"???
If, after the past 3 weeks you are not anti Trump, then you do not understand a damn thing that has been going on.
The loons are those who think that Trump is not exactly what he says he is; an anti freedom, anti democracy, dictator manqué. Sadly for @Sandpit and others, Trump is now, and it clearly seems has been for much of his career, under the influence of serious Russian kompromat, which effectively makes hm a wholly owned subsidiary of Russia Mafia Inc.
The Steele Dossier seems to be more proven every day.
Reform UK voters are much more likely to have a positive view of Donald Trump than other voters, slightly more likely to have a positive view of Vladimir Putin, and less likely to have a positive view of Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Donald Trump - net favourability scores Lib Dem: -84 Labour: -82 Conservative: -40 Reform UK: +38
There do seem to be a lot of right wing snowflakes around. Concerning.
Trump has betrayed Ukraine. He has defied the rule of law. He has sought to subvert democracy. He does not believe in free speech or free trade. His actions run directly contrary to vital UK economic, defence and security interests in a way that we have not seen from a US President in living memory. They know all this. But they cannot compute it. They cannot accept they got him totally wrong and they cannot admit that continuing to back him means taking sides against the UK. Their choice is to put "owning the libs" before their country. And so they lash out.
Tbf trying to reconcile support for Ukraine with Trump/MAGA sympathies is a pretty unpleasant gig. Your head could explode with the contradictions so taking a break from it is probably a good call.
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Having looked at this mornings posts I can see why @Sandpit left - @JosiasJessop was being an annoying prat on a topic Sandpit cares about
I deeply disapprove of folk asking for other folk to be banned (unlike at least one person on here moaning about banning), however Sandpit left off his own accord. Convenient that the next few months will be intensely uncomfortable for someone who afaIcs genuinely supports Ukraine but who is also relentlessly uncritical of Trump.
Was I asking for anyone to be banned? - I was pointing out why someone may have decided to leave
If we banned annoying prats Leon would be on account 75000 by now
Reform UK voters are much more likely to have a positive view of Donald Trump than other voters, slightly more likely to have a positive view of Vladimir Putin, and less likely to have a positive view of Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Donald Trump - net favourability scores Lib Dem: -84 Labour: -82 Conservative: -40 Reform UK: +38
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Having looked at this mornings posts I can see why @Sandpit left - @JosiasJessop was being an annoying prat on a topic Sandpit cares about
A nonsense take. Sorry.
Disagree. I usually like @JosiasJessop but he does have a predilection for making it personal when it's something he really cares about that stirs his emotions.
Which is uncalled for.
When called out for it, he then doubles down, rather than apologising or letting it slide, which shows a real weakness in character, not a strength.
We should all remember - for Trump it is only personal to Trump. He genuinely has a sociopathic lack of interest in anyone else. Taking what he says personally seems odd.
It's like when a certain local politician on a certain town council targeted me - for some bizarre reason he thought that I could care less what he thought of me. When my response was to grin and then laugh at his attempts to belittle me it used to drive him mad, much to my amusement.
Sorry to see @Sandpit take a break. A different view, even though I don't agree on that many things with him these days.
For a diversion. Yesterday we were talking about the Bismarck wreck having lost it's gun turrets.
Gun turrets were also involved in the wreck of HMS Victoria, a battlecruiser which sank off the coast of Lebanon in 1893 - and is one of a very few wrecks which is stuck vertically in the seabed (mud), with the stern poking up 100 ft or more. It had an enormous turret that took it straight down, after a collision caused by Admiral Tryon, trying too hard. He went down with the ship and ~350 others. It had a ram bow which helped it keep together.
It reportedly still has one of Nelson's swords on board, but is in about 400ft of water.
He was anoter good diverse voice. Are you guys going to chase every singe non centrist dad into the sea?
He was unable to reconcile supporting Trump and supporting Ukraine. Cognitive dissonance I guess. Didn’t like being challenged on it
It’s a shame I’ve had some good discussions with him but the fact is you can’t support Ukraine and Trump at the same time . Trumps disgraceful comments last night should surely be the last straw for anyone who tries to continue that juggling act .
I think that's what (too) many people wanted to say. tbf, if I'd seen the several posts pointing this out to him already posted I wouldn't have added my own contribution.
I wouldn't want to add to a pile-on. Unless it's against Leon because he loves it. Or WilliamGlenn because he is a disingenuous neonazi supporting troll. Apologies if I've got either of those wrong.
Sorry to see @Sandpit take a break. A different view, even though I don't agree on that many things with him these days.
For a diversion. Yesterday we were talking about the Bismarck wreck having lost it's gun turrets.
Gun turrets were also involved in the wreck of HMS Victoria, a battlecruiser which sank off the coast of Lebanon in 1893 - and is one of a very few wrecks which is stuck vertically in the seabed (mud), with the stern poking up 100 ft or more. It had an enormous turret that took it straight down, after a collision caused by Admiral Tryon, trying too hard. He went down with the ship and ~350 others. It had a ram bow which helped it keep together.
It reportedly still has one of Nelson's swords on board, but is in about 400ft of water.
He was anoter good diverse voice. Are you guys going to chase every singe non centrist dad into the sea?
He was unable to reconcile supporting Trump and supporting Ukraine. Cognitive dissonance I guess. Didn’t like being challenged on it
It’s a shame I’ve had some good discussions with him but the fact is you can’t support Ukraine and Trump at the same time . Trumps disgraceful comments last night should surely be the last straw for anyone who tries to continue that juggling act .
Well I think you can legitimately support some of his domestic policies while also criticising his foreign policies.
There do seem to be a lot of right wing snowflakes around. Concerning.
Trump has betrayed Ukraine. He has defied the rule of law. He has sought to subvert democracy. He does not believe in free speech or free trade. His actions run directly contrary to vital UK economic, defence and security interests in a way that we have not seen from a US President in living memory. They know all this. But they cannot compute it. They cannot accept they got him totally wrong and they cannot admit that continuing to back him means taking sides against the UK. Their choice is to put "owning the libs" before their country. And so they lash out.
How is it a betrayal? DJT doesn’t owe Ukraine shit. He never said he was going to save them or continue funding them.
You can construct an argument that his policy is morally, politically or strategically flawed but it's not a betrayal.
A Kemi speech at the weekend to the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC).
ARC is the Paul Marshall / Jordan Peterson setup, supported by Legatum Ventures. Paul Marshall is the hedgie who owns GB News, The Spectator and Unherd.
Marshall's journey is interesting - he coedited the Orange Book, and supported Lib Dems. Then did a fairly sharp turn to support Brexit, and is where he is now.
"The problem isn't liberalism, the problem is weakness"
Sorry to see @Sandpit take a break. A different view, even though I don't agree on that many things with him these days.
For a diversion. Yesterday we were talking about the Bismarck wreck having lost it's gun turrets.
Gun turrets were also involved in the wreck of HMS Victoria, a battlecruiser which sank off the coast of Lebanon in 1893 - and is one of a very few wrecks which is stuck vertically in the seabed (mud), with the stern poking up 100 ft or more. It had an enormous turret that took it straight down, after a collision caused by Admiral Tryon, trying too hard. He went down with the ship and ~350 others. It had a ram bow which helped it keep together.
It reportedly still has one of Nelson's swords on board, but is in about 400ft of water.
He was anoter good diverse voice. Are you guys going to chase every singe non centrist dad into the sea?
He was unable to reconcile supporting Trump and supporting Ukraine. Cognitive dissonance I guess. Didn’t like being challenged on it
It’s a shame I’ve had some good discussions with him but the fact is you can’t support Ukraine and Trump at the same time . Trumps disgraceful comments last night should surely be the last straw for anyone who tries to continue that juggling act .
Well I think you can legitimately support some of his domestic policies while also criticising his foreign policies.
Even then, it's a stretch. America needs to change a lot of how it does things - its performance metrics compared internationally on so many topics highlight how "the greatest country in the world" is a pitiful piece of propaganda and nothing else.
So I get the reasons why so many have decided to vote for him this time. They won't get what they want because what he is doing will make more things worse than it will better. But he's acting quickly and decisively which is a rare thing for a politician.
Ah, I see @Sandpit was chased away by the anti-Trump loons, led by Sofa Sargeant, Royal Autistic Regiment, @JosiasJessop
Unsurprising
"Anti Trump loons"???
If, after the past 3 weeks you are not anti Trump, then you do not understand a damn thing that has been going on.
The loons are those who think that Trump is not exactly what he says he is; an anti freedom, anti democracy, dictator manqué. Sadly for @Sandpit and others, Trump is now, and it clearly seems has been for much of his career, under the influence of serious Russian kompromat, which effectively makes hm a wholly owned subsidiary of Russia Mafia Inc.
The Steele Dossier seems to be more proven every day.
Trump's opponents are correct. He is both evil, and a fascist, and one who makes common cause, with other evil, fascistic, leaders (though of course, there is no honour among thieves - they'd turn on each other, if it profited them.)
Reform UK voters are much more likely to have a positive view of Donald Trump than other voters, slightly more likely to have a positive view of Vladimir Putin, and less likely to have a positive view of Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Donald Trump - net favourability scores Lib Dem: -84 Labour: -82 Conservative: -40 Reform UK: +38
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Probably not the wisest thing to call the mods wankers.
Like others I didn't know @felix and @BlancheLivermore had been banned. I enjoy their posts.
Also re @Sandpit I enjoy his posts as well. Also I will have a specific post for @Sandpit in about a week so I hope he is still lurking. Its also for @Dura_Ace who will be so livid he will smash his keyboard again after a similar post I made sometime ago.
I’m not calling the mods wankers I’m calling all the midwit centrist dads of PB wankers, esp as they now comprise 90% of the comments
There do seem to be a lot of right wing snowflakes around. Concerning.
Trump has betrayed Ukraine. He has defied the rule of law. He has sought to subvert democracy. He does not believe in free speech or free trade. His actions run directly contrary to vital UK economic, defence and security interests in a way that we have not seen from a US President in living memory. They know all this. But they cannot compute it. They cannot accept they got him totally wrong and they cannot admit that continuing to back him means taking sides against the UK. Their choice is to put "owning the libs" before their country. And so they lash out.
How is it a betrayal? DJT doesn’t owe Ukraine shit. He never said he was going to save them or continue funding them.
You can construct an argument that his policy is morally, politically or strategically flawed but it's not a betrayal.
He's not interested in peace, as he claimed. He actively takes Putin's side in this conflict.
I think some like Trumps way of doing things , it’s certainly not what the west is used to .
And I do get why he appeals to some people . But at the end of the day if people truly believe in Ukraines right to exist then continuing to support him seems impossible.
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Having looked at this mornings posts I can see why @Sandpit left - @JosiasJessop was being an annoying prat on a topic Sandpit cares about
I deeply disapprove of folk asking for other folk to be banned (unlike at least one person on here moaning about banning), however Sandpit left off his own accord. Convenient that the next few months will be intensely uncomfortable for someone who afaIcs genuinely supports Ukraine but who is also relentlessly uncritical of Trump.
Was I asking for anyone to be banned? - I was pointing out why someone may have decided to leave
If we banned annoying prats Leon would be on account 75000 by now
I’ll have you know I am now on account 98,376
And every single one has been 1000x more interesting and/or funnier and/or more insightful than your entire career on here. Indeed your entire life
There do seem to be a lot of right wing snowflakes around. Concerning.
Trump has betrayed Ukraine. He has defied the rule of law. He has sought to subvert democracy. He does not believe in free speech or free trade. His actions run directly contrary to vital UK economic, defence and security interests in a way that we have not seen from a US President in living memory. They know all this. But they cannot compute it. They cannot accept they got him totally wrong and they cannot admit that continuing to back him means taking sides against the UK. Their choice is to put "owning the libs" before their country. And so they lash out.
Can you define our interests in specific national terms as opposed to things like 'free trade' and 'the rules-based order'?
"Today I heard, ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited. Well, you’ve been there for three years. You should have ended it — three years. You should have never been there. You should have never started it. You should have made a deal.
We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law in Ukraine, where the leader in Ukraine — I mean I hate to say it, but he’s down at 4% approval rating — and the country’s been blown to smithereens,”
The 4% approval rating is a straight out ridiculous lie.
Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, and saying that's net approval, which would be pretty good compared with almost any democratic leader, it's wrong.
A Kemi speech at the weekend to the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC).
ARC is the Paul Marshall / Jordan Peterson setup, supported by Legatum Ventures. Paul Marshall is the hedgie who owns GB News, The Spectator and Unherd.
"The problem isn't liberalism, the problem is weakness"
People aren't stupid. They know that cheap talk about being poor will, all else equal, scare the government into giving out more stuff. Governments also aren't stupid and don't get goaded. So it's just cheap talk. Real terms consumer spending talks.
I’m afraid I have to disagree on this one minor point
People ARE stupid
Yes, the "Korean style armistice" is recent proof of that.
You’re basically a human slug. No. You’re basically the kind of creature that lives in the toilets used by human slugs when they go to the toilet, that’s what I think of you
Is what you call a "toilet" a bit like a lavatory?
OK, so what should I be drinking then, you bellends?
Choose my next beverage for me.
Creme de Menthe Frappe
Also, why are you drinking at 11am?!
I know you've quit your job, but maybe you don't want to dive IMMEDIATELY into alcoholism. I mean, if it's your choice, far enough! - but take a while to choose?
I'm on holiday mate. Been up since 5am with a noisy 2 year old and took my daughter electric jet skiing in the pool at 8am!
PS. Creme de Menthe is disgusting.
How do you electric jet ski in a pool? Don't you run out of pool quite quickly?
There do seem to be a lot of right wing snowflakes around. Concerning.
Trump has betrayed Ukraine. He has defied the rule of law. He has sought to subvert democracy. He does not believe in free speech or free trade. His actions run directly contrary to vital UK economic, defence and security interests in a way that we have not seen from a US President in living memory. They know all this. But they cannot compute it. They cannot accept they got him totally wrong and they cannot admit that continuing to back him means taking sides against the UK. Their choice is to put "owning the libs" before their country. And so they lash out.
Can you define our interests in specific national terms as opposed to things like 'free trade' and 'the rules-based order'?
The rule of law, liberal democracy, free speech, free trade and not being part of a continent dominated by a murdering fascist thug are all in the UK's national interest.
Reform UK voters are much more likely to have a positive view of Donald Trump than other voters, slightly more likely to have a positive view of Vladimir Putin, and less likely to have a positive view of Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Donald Trump - net favourability scores Lib Dem: -84 Labour: -82 Conservative: -40 Reform UK: +38
The tiny minorities always amuse me. Who are the LibDems for Putin? The Labour number will be Corbyn types, and the Tory number fans of Trump; but the LibDems?
This is were the 'anti-woke' agenda has been heading for some time: not just against woke, but against women, and against anyone who dares to be different.
Thus ensuring you double-down against it, turn up the volume of your hyper-liberalism, further fuelling polarisation and, in your everything or nothing duel, risk losing everything. Including losing liberalism itself.
See where this ends? See how important it is to moderate it?
Of course you don't and won't. Not a bit of it.
How is not automatically blaming the women 'hyper-liberalism' ?
That's what I'm commenting on. The way when anything like this happens, certain people look for any woman to blame. It happens time and time again with incidents. Often followed by some guff about DEI.
Sometimes a woman might be to blame; but it's the automatic "Oh my God it's a woman's fault!" that is indefensible.
It's offensive, wrong, and dickish. But if you seek knobbish views out you will find them.
Which you will because, for you, this is about confirmation bias and finding any reason possible to dismiss the (very real and serious) concerns about Woke and its overreach.
This idiotic guy and you. You both need each other.
I don't usually agree with you Casino, but I'm with you on this. Why quote some random anonymous arsehole on twitter? it's stupid, annoying, counter-productive and just helps promote said random anonymous arsehole.
Because the 'random anonymous arsehole' is very much liked by the algorithm, and often retweeted by Musky Baby himself. The 'random anonymous arsehole' has a massive reach; perhaps more than a modest newspaper.
Sandpit left because he didn't like getting called out for his absurd position on Trump and Ukraine, not his support for Trump per se. It's weird because on other issues like energy, we come from entire different angles but can usually find a pragmatic accord on the virtues of battery storage or something.
bigjohnowls has similarly bonkers positions on Ukraine/Gaza, gets called out on it in vitriolic terms, but hasn't flounced.
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Having looked at this mornings posts I can see why @Sandpit left - @JosiasJessop was being an annoying prat on a topic Sandpit cares about
A nonsense take. Sorry.
Disagree. I usually like @JosiasJessop but he does have a predilection for making it personal when it's something he really cares about that stirs his emotions.
Which is uncalled for.
When called out for it, he then doubles down, rather than apologising or letting it slide, which shows a real weakness in character, not a strength.
Not with the exchange in question. I'm just going on that. It did not read as "annoying prat vs someone who cares about Ukraine". It was robust and a bit personal (but not massively) on both sides and one of them flipped and flounced. He'll be back quite soon, I'd have thought.
Sorry to see @Sandpit take a break. A different view, even though I don't agree on that many things with him these days.
For a diversion. Yesterday we were talking about the Bismarck wreck having lost it's gun turrets.
Gun turrets were also involved in the wreck of HMS Victoria, a battlecruiser which sank off the coast of Lebanon in 1893 - and is one of a very few wrecks which is stuck vertically in the seabed (mud), with the stern poking up 100 ft or more. It had an enormous turret that took it straight down, after a collision caused by Admiral Tryon, trying too hard. He went down with the ship and ~350 others. It had a ram bow which helped it keep together.
It reportedly still has one of Nelson's swords on board, but is in about 400ft of water.
He was anoter good diverse voice. Are you guys going to chase every singe non centrist dad into the sea?
He was unable to reconcile supporting Trump and supporting Ukraine. Cognitive dissonance I guess. Didn’t like being challenged on it
It’s a shame I’ve had some good discussions with him but the fact is you can’t support Ukraine and Trump at the same time . Trumps disgraceful comments last night should surely be the last straw for anyone who tries to continue that juggling act .
Well I think you can legitimately support some of his domestic policies while also criticising his foreign policies.
Even then, it's a stretch. America needs to change a lot of how it does things - its performance metrics compared internationally on so many topics highlight how "the greatest country in the world" is a pitiful piece of propaganda and nothing else.
So I get the reasons why so many have decided to vote for him this time. They won't get what they want because what he is doing will make more things worse than it will better. But he's acting quickly and decisively which is a rare thing for a politician.
I'm pretty much with Rochdale on this. Even without the malevolence, Trump is headed right back to a series of golden ages that mainly exist in his head, such as to the oil era economically via "Drill Baby Drill", and cannot be recreated now.
But his grass roots supporters won't get off the helter-skelter until they crash because they have fallen for the stuff themselves. I mark the oligarch supporters down as operating in their self-interest with a few variations.
In the process he is burning down most of the things the USA actually needs to move forward, internally and externally, at incalculable cost for the USA and the rest of the world.
I'm guessing either OSA or libel, for those are very easy to breach in this country if you're not careful.. Tbh if/when people are banned a bold note from @PBModerator on the reason for the ban would be handy..
Reform UK voters are much more likely to have a positive view of Donald Trump than other voters, slightly more likely to have a positive view of Vladimir Putin, and less likely to have a positive view of Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Donald Trump - net favourability scores Lib Dem: -84 Labour: -82 Conservative: -40 Reform UK: +38
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Having looked at this mornings posts I can see why @Sandpit left - @JosiasJessop was being an annoying prat on a topic Sandpit cares about
Sandpit supports Trump, Musk and the GOP, and also supports Ukraine.
For some time I've seen these two positions as mutually incompatible. Your 'being an annoying prat' was just asking him how he could reconcile those views. I never get a straight answer.
My own *guess* is that he cannot reconcile them, and it might be that he's annoyed that the inherent contradiction in his position is now glaringly obvious.
How can you care about Ukraine *and* support what Musk, Trump and the GOP are doing?
There do seem to be a lot of right wing snowflakes around. Concerning.
Trump has betrayed Ukraine. He has defied the rule of law. He has sought to subvert democracy. He does not believe in free speech or free trade. His actions run directly contrary to vital UK economic, defence and security interests in a way that we have not seen from a US President in living memory. They know all this. But they cannot compute it. They cannot accept they got him totally wrong and they cannot admit that continuing to back him means taking sides against the UK. Their choice is to put "owning the libs" before their country. And so they lash out.
How is it a betrayal? DJT doesn’t owe Ukraine shit. He never said he was going to save them or continue funding them.
You can construct an argument that his policy is morally, politically or strategically flawed but it's not a betrayal.
That is a very fair point. Some of us understood that Trump was always going to take Putin's side over Ukraine. His right-wing cheerleaders on here and more widely in the UK always denied it. In fact, they claimed the opposite. Now they are confronted with the reality. And, it turns out, what matters most is "owning the libs".
There do seem to be a lot of right wing snowflakes around. Concerning.
Trump has betrayed Ukraine. He has defied the rule of law. He has sought to subvert democracy. He does not believe in free speech or free trade. His actions run directly contrary to vital UK economic, defence and security interests in a way that we have not seen from a US President in living memory. They know all this. But they cannot compute it. They cannot accept they got him totally wrong and they cannot admit that continuing to back him means taking sides against the UK. Their choice is to put "owning the libs" before their country. And so they lash out.
Can you define our interests in specific national terms as opposed to things like 'free trade' and 'the rules-based order'?
We're a trading nation; more so now our engineering and chemical industry is being eviscerated by Net Zero (fuck off Labour) and Chinese subsidies. Trade relies on safe, defended sea lanes and international agreements on concepts like "a contract". That in turn was underpinned by eighty years of the US backing it up with warships. Now that US is enacting its long prophesied (see Zeihan) retreat from its int'l peacekeeping role into a multipolar world, that entire structure is collapsing like damp cardboard. That will manifest in inflation and lack of choice as goods become more expensive or (given Chinese subsidies) Chinese.
Reform and the other Trump arselickers should be a bit concerned that if Trump sticks tariffs on the UK and continues to spout Kremlin lies that their support for him might seem less than optimal.
Reform UK voters are much more likely to have a positive view of Donald Trump than other voters, slightly more likely to have a positive view of Vladimir Putin, and less likely to have a positive view of Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Donald Trump - net favourability scores Lib Dem: -84 Labour: -82 Conservative: -40 Reform UK: +38
That Volodymyr Zelenskyy figure is beyond strange, it’s almost like their source of news and worldview is based on anti Ukraine propaganda
It's the positive figure for Trump that I find most striking.
Oh the Trump ones I completely get - you typical reform voter thinks the Government isn’t doing anything to help them - mainly be inaction - and Trump is clearly doing a lot of things.
The fact the things Trump is doing won’t help people like them is something they may discover later
Sandpit left because he didn't like getting called out for his absurd position on Trump and Ukraine, not his support for Trump per se. It's weird because on other issues like energy, we come from entire different angles but can usually find a pragmatic accord on the virtues of battery storage or something.
bigjohnowls has similarly bonkers positions on Ukraine/Gaza, gets called out on it in vitriolic terms, but hasn't flounced.
Shame though. He has an apparent suspension of sense on Trump re Ukraine, but interesting on many other issues. Hopefully will return soon.
It is self evident that the Business Secretary has committed a criminal offence by describing himself as a "Solicitor" when non-articled trainee clerk would have been the correct designation. That is straight forward.
However, as a member of the legal profession surely there is also a duty on Starmer to ensure those who work with him are properly described, in the same way as a doctor has a duty to report fellow "doctors" if it transpires they might not have elementary competence. Particularly now it has come to light is Starmer not in real jepardy if he does not remove the whip from Reynolds with all convenient haste ?
FPT
In true PB tradition this isn’t technically correct. A trainee solicitor can legitimately call themselves a “trainee solicitor”. I don’t know what this chap referred to himself as but “an articled clerk” hasn’t been a thing in England and Wales for over 30 years.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
“Any unqualified person who wilfully pretends to be, or takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is, qualified or recognised by law as qualified to act as a solicitor shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.”
He told the Commons that he worked as a solicitor in Manchester before changing career.
Apparently there are also misleading linked in snaps on Guido but I haven’t checked that website.
Surely the offence is to practise as a solicitor when you are not qualified to be one, not to leave out the word "trainee" on a CV for a non-legal job.
It would be interesting to get a representative sample of CVs from a range of senior people and see how many have been embellished in some way, I would suspect all of them.
I assumed though but @Gallowgate ’s quote from the act suggests not.
In my view he’s broken the law (strict liability) and the punishment should be a conditional discharge.
I wish these lazy websites/journalists would actually quote or screenshot the website referenced rather than just “alleged” or “reported”.
https://www.jonathanreynolds.org.uk/about-me/ This bit seems acceptable - he did accept a training contract to be a solicitor and that isn’t in contravention of any laws as far as I understand them.
Looking at the same website on archive.org that quote hasn’t changed in 5 years.
Unless I am missing something, or it’s a different website or part of the website, this may be fake news.
To clarify, if the alleged issue is with the following, then he has done nothing wrong in my view.
“In 2007 I was finally able to enrol in law school, now as a mature student, and went on to achieve my Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) at BPP Law School in Manchester. I was delighted to be offered a training contract to become a solicitor with Addleshaw Goddard LLP in Manchester. Addleshaw was a fantastic place to work.”
This is all very normal terminology within the legal industry. I guess he doesn’t make it entirely clear he didn’t complete his training contract but I doubt it is that deep. To suggest this is some sort of fraudulent “gotcha”? Talk about focusing on the big issues.
I’ve provided a link where he says he “worked as a solicitor” at AG.
It’s not big stuff, of course. Guido’s a muck-raker and scandal-monkey. But it is an offence with strict liability. I guess lawyers don’t like people pretending to be lawyers. Competition or something.
Aye @Foss already provided that link. My bad for missing it.
I’m at a loss as to the issue that pay says “ training contract to become a solicitor” which to me is very, very clear cut - your complaint appears to be if I ignore the “training contract to become” bit he’s claiming to be a solicitor
Linkedin, his own website - it's just weird, a fantasist that seems to have started to believe it himself.
Angels dancing on the head of a pin. My last solicitor was a trainee (under supervision). Was she "acting as a solicitor"? Probably. Would she have described herself as a solicitor? I don't know but have just noticed I already did.
Embarrassing perhaps but only fatal if Starmer is already looking to move Reynolds out, or unless there is a link to an actual scandal like ballsing up a contract.
If she's doing the work of a solicitor, charging for oine, and being responsible (together with her employer) for the results, then ...
A lot of jobs have a lengthy training period and one doesn't get full professional qualifications for several years. Often with various grades thereof. One thinks of doctors.
Medical doctors get to call themselves that after medical school despite the fact they have considerable further training ahead of them. Foundation year doctors can only work under supervision. I am not familiar with solicitors, but this seems to be a difference. Doctors can call themselves doctors sooner than solicitors can call themselves solicitors.
Sandpit left because he didn't like getting called out for his absurd position on Trump and Ukraine, not his support for Trump per se. It's weird because on other issues like energy, we come from entire different angles but can usually find a pragmatic accord on the virtues of battery storage or something.
bigjohnowls has similarly bonkers positions on Ukraine/Gaza, gets called out on it in vitriolic terms, but hasn't flounced.
It usually indicates that @Sandpit knows his position is untenable but doesn’t want to admit it
Sandpit left because he didn't like getting called out for his absurd position on Trump and Ukraine, not his support for Trump per se. It's weird because on other issues like energy, we come from entire different angles but can usually find a pragmatic accord on the virtues of battery storage or something.
bigjohnowls has similarly bonkers positions on Ukraine/Gaza, gets called out on it in vitriolic terms, but hasn't flounced.
BJO's point- war is bad, so it's worth doing almost anything to avoid it- is coherent, even when it's wrong.
That's different to the situation of those who thought they could support both Trump and Ukraine. They were, bluntly, conned, and by one of the best conmen in the business.
Nobody likes to admit to themselves that they have fallen for a conman. People tend to like being told that they have fallen for a conman even less.
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Having looked at this mornings posts I can see why @Sandpit left - @JosiasJessop was being an annoying prat on a topic Sandpit cares about
Sandpit supports Trump, Musk and the GOP, and also supports Ukraine.
For some time I've seen these two positions as mutually incompatible. Your 'being an annoying prat' was just asking him how he could reconcile those views. I never get a straight answer.
My own *guess* is that he cannot reconcile them, and it might be that he's annoyed that the inherent contradiction in his position is now glaringly obvious.
How can you care about Ukraine *and* support what Musk, Trump and the GOP are doing?
The thing was he said he didn’t want to think about it and then you doubled down on the question (which is where the Prat bit came in).
And we probably all have opinions that when combined don’t make any sense and require a lot of further thought
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
Having looked at this mornings posts I can see why @Sandpit left - @JosiasJessop was being an annoying prat on a topic Sandpit cares about
A nonsense take. Sorry.
Disagree. I usually like @JosiasJessop but he does have a predilection for making it personal when it's something he really cares about that stirs his emotions.
Which is uncalled for.
When called out for it, he then doubles down, rather than apologising or letting it slide, which shows a real weakness in character, not a strength.
I fundamentally disagree with you on that, obviously. If someone has views, they can be questioned on those views. I can. You can. Any other poster can. If you express a view, you can be challenged on it. It's called robust debate.
As for "making it personal": I fear you are as good at doing that as anyone.
Comments
You wankers are going to turn PB into fucking Bluesky
The new fangled television topic banned.
Thanks. Nice and active holiday, with lots of cycling, which is doing me some good.
Trump is delivering everything I hoped he would and more - his actions continue to veer towards open fascism and his understanding of how stuff works is almost as disconnected from reality as is the same for many of his supporters.
Would the world be better without him? Sure! But he is here and he was elected. So why get het up about him doing the things he was elected to do?
We know that Trump is Mr Flip-Flop (with the emphasis on the latter). Sticking Mandy into the Ambassador role was a master stroke. We can try and dissuade Trump from some of the more damaging international things, and direct our energies into planning for what we need to do if Mandy fails.
I don't care one bit about Trump making a mad comment about who started the war or that Starmer can come over if he wants or anything else. Words - from that man - have no value. Actions matter.
So everyone needs to Calm Down a bit. Some of the comments I get over on YouTube are increasingly showing TDS. We all laughed at the Nazi jokes in the days after the salute thing. They've gone very stale very quickly and when "Swasticar" isn't resonating the people telling the "joke" get apoplectic. And not just on my channel, all over the tinterweb.
I get how impotent some people feel in the face of Trump. But what is the point in howling at the moon?
Why?
Somebody else has picked up on it...
"...It Is Time For Intermarium 2.0 Against Russia..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWVnDV-JnjM (36 mins)
Checking the AI number I quoted with the actual data puts a queston mark over the HALE (Healthy Life Expectancy Number), which the official WHO data puts at ~70 in 2019, having increased from ~67 since 2000 - for the UK, in line with Western Europe.
https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.SDG2016LEXv?lang=en
Dunno re Felix.
I can't get pissed, due to wife/kids etc, but I still like this. A lot.
Embarrassing perhaps but only fatal if Starmer is already looking to move Reynolds out, or unless there is a link to an actual scandal like ballsing up a contract.
Mediocre residential home £60k pa (from net income)
Single carer at home (not really 24 hr) £70k pa
Most people can't afford to get old or sick...
Banned from talking about because I’m obviously right and that annoys the midwit dads
Frankly I lose track
A lot of jobs have a lengthy training period and one doesn't get full professional qualifications for several years. Often with various grades thereof. One thinks of doctors.
Like others I didn't know @felix and @BlancheLivermore had been banned. I enjoy their posts.
Also re @Sandpit I enjoy his posts as well. Also I will have a specific post for @Sandpit in about a week so I hope he is still lurking. Its also for @Dura_Ace who will be so livid he will smash his keyboard again after a similar post I made sometime ago.
sources. The issue wasn’t what he was posting on here but what he was reading on X and where that was taking him
As far as I can see this is not something Reynolds has done, ever? He has said he “worked as a solicitor” which is true is it not? He was doing the work of a solicitor whilst being a trainee.
The whole thing seems to be a lot of fuss about nothing.
People don’t need to post here - we do it for fun and if it doesn’t become fun people can easily disappear.
Donald Trump - net favourability scores
Lib Dem: -84
Labour: -82
Conservative: -40
Reform UK: +38
Vladimir Putin
Labour: -94
Conservative: -92
Lib Dem: -91
Reform UK: -68
Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Lib Dem: +75
Labour: +66
Conservative: +65
Reform UK: +12
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1891818765404471598
Which is uncalled for.
When called out for it, he then doubles down, rather than apologising or letting it slide, which shows a real weakness in character, not a strength.
If, after the past 3 weeks you are not anti Trump, then you do not understand a damn thing that has been going on.
The loons are those who think that Trump is not exactly what he says he is; an anti freedom, anti democracy, dictator manqué. Sadly for @Sandpit and others, Trump is now, and it clearly seems has been for much of his career, under the influence of serious Russian kompromat, which effectively makes hm a wholly owned subsidiary of Russia Mafia Inc.
The Steele Dossier seems to be more proven every day.
If we banned annoying prats Leon would be on account 75000 by now
It's like when a certain local politician on a certain town council targeted me - for some bizarre reason he thought that I could care less what he thought of me. When my response was to grin and then laugh at his attempts to belittle me it used to drive him mad, much to my amusement.
I wouldn't want to add to a pile-on. Unless it's against Leon because he loves it. Or WilliamGlenn because he is a disingenuous neonazi supporting troll. Apologies if I've got either of those wrong.
You can construct an argument that his policy is morally, politically or strategically flawed but it's not a betrayal.
ARC is the Paul Marshall / Jordan Peterson setup, supported by Legatum Ventures. Paul Marshall is the hedgie who owns GB News, The Spectator and Unherd.
Marshall's journey is interesting - he coedited the Orange Book, and supported Lib Dems. Then did a fairly sharp turn to support Brexit, and is where he is now.
"The problem isn't liberalism, the problem is weakness"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WCQ6-QbTDQ
So I get the reasons why so many have decided to vote for him this time. They won't get what they want because what he is doing will make more things worse than it will better. But he's acting quickly and decisively which is a rare thing for a politician.
And I do get why he appeals to some people . But at the end of the day if people truly believe in Ukraines right to exist then continuing to support him seems impossible.
And every single one has been 1000x more interesting and/or funnier and/or more insightful than your entire career on here. Indeed your entire life
Zelensky' net approval is rather higher than Trump's.
https://kyivindependent.com/ukrainians-trust-in-zelensky-increases-to-57-survey-shows/
That must be difficult to compute.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-convenes-second-meeting-ukraine-with-other-europeans-canada-2025-02-18/
Two sources said those invited were Norway, Canada, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Finland, Romania, Sweden and Belgium.
bigjohnowls has similarly bonkers positions on Ukraine/Gaza, gets called out on it in vitriolic terms, but hasn't flounced.
But his grass roots supporters won't get off the helter-skelter until they crash because they have fallen for the stuff themselves. I mark the oligarch supporters down as operating in their self-interest with a few variations.
In the process he is burning down most of the things the USA actually needs to move forward, internally and externally, at incalculable cost for the USA and the rest of the world.
I'm guessing either OSA or libel, for those are very easy to breach in this country if you're not careful.. Tbh if/when people are banned a bold note from @PBModerator on the reason for the ban would be handy..
This from July last year:
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/07/02/views-of-russia-and-putin-july-24/
has % who have some/a lot "confidence in Putin to do the right thing regarding world affairs"
in 10 European countries ranging from
Poland 1% and Sweden 4%
to
Hungary 21% and Greece 34%
UK in the middle of the pack on 14%
We owe it to him to do everything we can to support him. It might not be enough but we must try.
For some time I've seen these two positions as mutually incompatible. Your 'being an annoying prat' was just asking him how he could reconcile those views. I never get a straight answer.
My own *guess* is that he cannot reconcile them, and it might be that he's annoyed that the inherent contradiction in his position is now glaringly obvious.
How can you care about Ukraine *and* support what Musk, Trump and the GOP are doing?
The fact the things Trump is doing won’t help people like them is something they may discover later
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/282049626?srsltid=AfmBOopMVGmwrPZzS0nr7rbjTu6PdMYduvjXO5Z0XlijAWViGJtXAw1o
That's different to the situation of those who thought they could support both Trump and Ukraine. They were, bluntly, conned, and by one of the best conmen in the business.
Nobody likes to admit to themselves that they have fallen for a conman. People tend to like being told that they have fallen for a conman even less.
Especially when it's true.
And we probably all have opinions that when combined don’t make any sense and require a lot of further thought
As for "making it personal": I fear you are as good at doing that as anyone.
Starmer only beats Truss would you believe
Actually I do !!!!
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1892151893549318312?t=dJW0OPIWdH4pRMAVpgzCpg&s=19