Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Attacking a politician, on the basis of his political record, (and human rights cases are deeply political), is entirely legitimate. That was the case in the Roman Republic, and it's the case in any society where a law officer is also a politician.
This is different to attacking a judge, because of the cases he took on as an advocate, because a judge is not a politician.
I am drinking Domaine Clos Des Rochers, Riesling (2022) in a sun soaked restaurant above the Moselle, surrounded by the rustling green vineyards that yield this frankly stupendous wine
Angel Delight is another remnant of 70s execrabilia which should not have outlasted the decade. I'm not surprised the Indonesian authorities were suspicious.
Angel Delight is another remnant of 70s execrabilia which should not have outlasted the decade. I'm not surprised the Indonesian authorities were suspicious.
Butterscotch angel Delight was god tier stuff.
I’ve not seen it for years.
That was my fav as a kid. As a working class kid from Stoke, a real treat was that with a banana in it !!!!
Interesting that our solar panels have been excellent this year and EON have just paid me the equivalent of a full quarter energy costs for March to June [£337]
Angel Delight is another remnant of 70s execrabilia which should not have outlasted the decade. I'm not surprised the Indonesian authorities were suspicious.
Butterscotch angel Delight was god tier stuff.
I’ve not seen it for years.
Yeah, I remember looking forward to having Angel Delight as a kid. But I saw it my local Sainsbury's a few weeks back, so still going strong!
Angel Delight is another remnant of 70s execrabilia which should not have outlasted the decade. I'm not surprised the Indonesian authorities were suspicious.
Far-right Dutch leader Geert Wilders quits government in dispute over immigration and asylum policy. The Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders has pulled his party out of the country’s four-party ruling coalition in a row over immigration and asylum policy, plunging the country into political uncertainty.
Didn't think we had had an general election in Netherlands for a few weeks...
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
She needs to be tried for her crimes - preferably in a British court. In not there, The Hague. If not there, where she committed them.
And for those who say that “evidence is a problem”, there are social media posts from the time she was cheerfully helping commit war crimes, discussing what she was doing.
If a single tweet is good for a multi year sentence for incitement, a single tweet/Farcebook post should be good for war crimes?
Good question but do not overlook the matter of grooming. If Begum is accountable despite having been groomed, where does that leave the sex grooming cases?
Being groomed doesn’t give you a free pass to commit crimes.
In past cases, grooming has been used as a mitigation in sentencing for crimes, I believe.
Angel Delight is another remnant of 70s execrabilia which should not have outlasted the decade. I'm not surprised the Indonesian authorities were suspicious.
Butterscotch angel Delight was god tier stuff.
I’ve not seen it for years.
That was my fav as a kid. As a working class kid from Stoke, a real treat was that with a banana in it !!!!
Yep me too. My fav was jam swiss roll and custard.
Far-right Dutch leader Geert Wilders quits government in dispute over immigration and asylum policy. The Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders has pulled his party out of the country’s four-party ruling coalition in a row over immigration and asylum policy, plunging the country into political uncertainty.
Didn't think we had had an general election in Netherlands for a few weeks...
Europe not a happy place just now with Poland electing a right wing President snd vote of confidence and the courts banning German policy on immigration
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Has he reached peak Jenrick yet?
Probably not. The guy seems to have a lot of energy. Shame he can't find a productive outlet for it.
Far-right Dutch leader Geert Wilders quits government in dispute over immigration and asylum policy. The Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders has pulled his party out of the country’s four-party ruling coalition in a row over immigration and asylum policy, plunging the country into political uncertainty.
Didn't think we had had an general election in Netherlands for a few weeks...
Europe not a happy place just now with Poland electing a right wing President snd vote of confidence and the courts banning German policy on immigration
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Has he reached peak Jenrick yet?
Probably not. The guy seems to have a lot of energy. Shame he can't find a productive outlet for it.
UK corporation tax is a mess. It makes us uncompetitive, not just vs Singapore, Ireland and other countries that tax companies less than us, but vs countries like Sweden and Denmark, who have higher tax but a better system. https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1929453488410415422
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Repressive autocratic politicians rely for their success on promoting such sentiments. So long as you realise this.
No one in the USA would hesitate to criticise Pam Bondi, on the basis of her record, so why be reluctant to criticise her counterpart in this country on similar grounds?
Tesla sales in Sweden in May 2025 were -46.2% for Model Y and -79.8% for Model 3 compared to May 2024. Expert interviewed in Swedish media said that the only way she sees this changing is if Musk is replaced as Tesla owner and new ownership distances itself from him.
⚡⚡⚡Ukraine has struck the #CrimeanBridge for the third time. The explosives were planted on underwater pillars and detonated the first device this morning. The supports are badly damaged. 19 km long, with road and rail sections, built through complex geology with piles driven 90 meters deep. Cost? ~$4 billion. Now it’s broken — and repairs won’t be cheap. Russia built the bridge to connect with annexed Crimea and used it to provide its army with supplies to conduct war in Ukraine.
Far-right Dutch leader Geert Wilders quits government in dispute over immigration and asylum policy. The Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders has pulled his party out of the country’s four-party ruling coalition in a row over immigration and asylum policy, plunging the country into political uncertainty.
Didn't think we had had an general election in Netherlands for a few weeks...
The biggest losers of a Dutch election would likely be New Social Contract which would go from 20 seats to 1 or 2.
The advice of John Bolton (Trump's National Security Adviser from 2018 to 2019, who was dumped when he insisted on not being a patsy) on that, after Trump was re-elected, was 'Tell him what he wants to hear on Defence budgets, with progress in the meantime, and make it long term enough that he will no longer the there."
I think Sky is writing about a hypothetical situation which may very well not ever exist.
Don't mention that the USA spent 3.4% in 2024, and that includes things like the Pacific Fleet that have precisely zero to do with NATO.
If Sir K has to respond, I think he will reaffirm 3% by 2034, and point out that a SDSR is always very broad brush, and perhaps talk about the other 1.5% for "defenc -related infrastructure", which could well cover things like investment in railways.
The advice of John Bolton (Trump's National Security Adviser from 2018 to 2019, who was dumped when he insisted on not being a patsy) on that, after Trump was re-elected, was 'Tell him what he wants to hear on Defence budgets, with progress in the meantime, and make it long term enough that he will no longer the there."
I think Sky is writing about a hypothetical situation which may very well not ever exist.
Don't mention that the USA spent 3.4% in 2024, and that includes things like the Pacific Fleet that have precisely zero to do with NATO.
If Sir K has to respond, I think he will reaffirm 3% by 2034, and point out that a SDSR is always very broad brush, and perhaps talk about the other 1.5% for "defenc -related infrastructure", which could well cover things like investment in railways.
NATO are expected to mandate 3.5% at their meeting at the end of this month
Also Starmer cannot afford anything without allocating the money and be seen to do so
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
Oh s***. I agree with Farage, Mogg and almost Leon. Call the thought police.
I don't think Farage really wants her back, I think it’s just Trump who oddly wants us to take her back.
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
He ought to do a shoplifting video next.
Channel. That's were the action is. If he had the knackers for it, which I sincerely doubt, he should go to France and pay to have himself trafficked across to the UK. That would either be coruscating social media content or he'd drown. Win-win.
GBeebies' Patrick Christys kind of did it half-way, he actually visited a migrant camp near Calais and talked to some of the "asylum seekers" therein.
He could wonder around the beaches nearby approach the migrants and say, excuse me, can you not go back and buy a Eurostar or Le Shuttle ticket like everyone else?
UK corporation tax is a mess. It makes us uncompetitive, not just vs Singapore, Ireland and other countries that tax companies less than us, but vs countries like Sweden and Denmark, who have higher tax but a better system. https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1929453488410415422
That whole thread is a list of a lot of taxes that need to be fixed and reformed.
Although he has a habit of looking at things multiple times which when it comes to VAT may or may not make sense. Although I wouldn’t want to cover what VAT covers I do think reducing the threshold at which companies start collecting it makes sense
The advice of John Bolton (Trump's National Security Adviser from 2018 to 2019, who was dumped when he insisted on not being a patsy) on that, after Trump was re-elected, was 'Tell him what he wants to hear on Defence budgets, with progress in the meantime, and make it long term enough that he will no longer the there."
I think Sky is writing about a hypothetical situation which may very well not ever exist.
Don't mention that the USA spent 3.4% in 2024, and that includes things like the Pacific Fleet that have precisely zero to do with NATO.
If Sir K has to respond, I think he will reaffirm 3% by 2034, and point out that a SDSR is always very broad brush, and perhaps talk about the other 1.5% for "defenc -related infrastructure", which could well cover things like investment in railways.
NATO are expected to mandate 3.5% at their meeting at the end of this month
Also Starmer cannot afford anything without allocating the money and be seen to do so
⚡⚡⚡Ukraine has struck the #CrimeanBridge for the third time. The explosives were planted on underwater pillars and detonated the first device this morning. The supports are badly damaged. 19 km long, with road and rail sections, built through complex geology with piles driven 90 meters deep. Cost? ~$4 billion. Now it’s broken — and repairs won’t be cheap. Russia built the bridge to connect with annexed Crimea and used it to provide its army with supplies to conduct war in Ukraine.
That's dambusters strategy - right up against the target and rely on the incompressibility of water to make the required charge smaller. I wonder how much damage it has done, and how they got it there?
At what point might some around Putin begin wondering whether they should have accepted the 30 day ceasefire for negotiations, rather than insisting on continued fighting?
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
The legal/activist class across Europe are like the monks and priests of the Catholic Church in northern and Western Europe circa 1500. Parasitic, doctrinaire, vain, myopic and greedy. And you can feel the resentment building and building. A Reformation is coming to sweep them away and it might be violent
The advice of John Bolton (Trump's National Security Adviser from 2018 to 2019, who was dumped when he insisted on not being a patsy) on that, after Trump was re-elected, was 'Tell him what he wants to hear on Defence budgets, with progress in the meantime, and make it long term enough that he will no longer the there."
I think Sky is writing about a hypothetical situation which may very well not ever exist.
Don't mention that the USA spent 3.4% in 2024, and that includes things like the Pacific Fleet that have precisely zero to do with NATO.
If Sir K has to respond, I think he will reaffirm 3% by 2034, and point out that a SDSR is always very broad brush, and perhaps talk about the other 1.5% for "defenc -related infrastructure", which could well cover things like investment in railways.
NATO are expected to mandate 3.5% at their meeting at the end of this month
Also Starmer cannot afford anything without allocating the money and be seen to do so
Also I’ve finally found something edible in Luxembourg. It’s alsacien tarte flambée
Not amazing. But edible. Actual flavour
I bet it isn't as good as butterscotch angel delight !!!!
It’s just a very very thin half burnt pizza with smoked ham onions and local cheese. But it’s yummy
And this Riesling - Domaine Clos Des Rochers (2022) - is genuinely world class. Who knew Riesling can be THIS good?
And I’m staring at the vineyards of the Moselle, in the vivid sunshine. Later I might eat an eel
Ah the old Flammekueche or “Alsatian Pizza” as we used to call it before we had too many complaints from our Korean friends when they realised the Alsatian referred to its place of origin not ingredients.
Looks as though the liberal-ish candidate has sealed his expected win.
Highest recorded turnout in a S Korean presidential poll. It looks as though the Koreans are better than Americans at reacting to threats to democracy.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Repressive autocratic politicians rely for their success on promoting such sentiments. So long as you realise this.
No one in the USA would hesitate to criticise Pam Bondi, on the basis of her record, so why be reluctant to criticise her counterpart in this country on similar grounds?
I'm talking about this general contempt for "human rights" and "lawyers" and "international law" etc. There's no way I'd want any politician in power in this country who thinks like that. The irritations and inefficiencies caused by too much reverence for the law is nothing compared to the dangers of the opposite.
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
The legal/activist class across Europe are like the monks and priests of the Catholic Church in northern and Western Europe circa 1500. Parasitic, doctrinaire, vain, myopic and greedy. And you can feel the resentment building and building. A Reformation is coming to sweep them away and it might be violent
That's a great analogy.
But it goes wider. Full on Pride shite at work today with some events stretching into August. A queer quiz. A gay tapestry. Marches all over the place. A fans for trans social.
The advice of John Bolton (Trump's National Security Adviser from 2018 to 2019, who was dumped when he insisted on not being a patsy) on that, after Trump was re-elected, was 'Tell him what he wants to hear on Defence budgets, with progress in the meantime, and make it long term enough that he will no longer the there."
I think Sky is writing about a hypothetical situation which may very well not ever exist.
Don't mention that the USA spent 3.4% in 2024, and that includes things like the Pacific Fleet that have precisely zero to do with NATO.
If Sir K has to respond, I think he will reaffirm 3% by 2034, and point out that a SDSR is always very broad brush, and perhaps talk about the other 1.5% for "defenc -related infrastructure", which could well cover things like investment in railways.
NATO are expected to mandate 3.5% at their meeting at the end of this month
Also Starmer cannot afford anything without allocating the money and be seen to do so
It’s going to blow a few minds when people remember Starmer and by extension Hermer are keeping the likes of Shamima Begum out of the UK whilst Farage wants her let back in the UK.
As does Jacob Rees Mogg, weirdly enough
The issue divides people unexpectedly
JRM’s FT article on Begum almost but not quite persuaded me that he has a point
Oh s***. I agree with Farage, Mogg and almost Leon. Call the thought police.
I don't think Farage really wants her back, I think it’s just Trump who oddly wants us to take her back.
⚡⚡⚡Ukraine has struck the #CrimeanBridge for the third time. The explosives were planted on underwater pillars and detonated the first device this morning. The supports are badly damaged. 19 km long, with road and rail sections, built through complex geology with piles driven 90 meters deep. Cost? ~$4 billion. Now it’s broken — and repairs won’t be cheap. Russia built the bridge to connect with annexed Crimea and used it to provide its army with supplies to conduct war in Ukraine.
That's dambusters strategy - right up against the target and rely on the incompressibility of water to make the required charge smaller. I wonder how much damage it has done, and how they got it there?
At what point might some around Putin begin wondering whether they should have accepted the 30 day ceasefire for negotiations, rather than insisting on continued fighting?
Allegedly Russia intended to launch a huge attack the day before the negotiations, using the planes that were destroyed by the drones 1 day earlier...
Also I’ve finally found something edible in Luxembourg. It’s alsacien tarte flambée
Not amazing. But edible. Actual flavour
I bet it isn't as good as butterscotch angel delight !!!!
It’s just a very very thin half burnt pizza with smoked ham onions and local cheese. But it’s yummy
And this Riesling - Domaine Clos Des Rochers (2022) - is genuinely world class. Who knew Riesling can be THIS good?
And I’m staring at the vineyards of the Moselle, in the vivid sunshine. Later I might eat an eel
Ah the old Flammekueche or “Alsatian Pizza” as we used to call it before we had too many complaints from our Korean friends when they realised the Alsatian referred to its place of origin not ingredients.
Yes!
Certainly not haute cuisine but full of flavour and crunchy burnt umami fun. And in the world of terrible pasta, pork dumpfelkokkenschlag and awful “mango Provençal salad with croutons” it’s a godsend
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
The legal/activist class across Europe are like the monks and priests of the Catholic Church in northern and Western Europe circa 1500. Parasitic, doctrinaire, vain, myopic and greedy. And you can feel the resentment building and building. A Reformation is coming to sweep them away and it might be violent
That's a great analogy.
But it goes wider. Full on Pride shite at work today with some events stretching into August. A queer quiz. A gay tapestry. Marches all over the place. A fans for trans social.
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
If we stopped funding proxy wars and spent more on development, there would be less for asylum seekers to run away from.
This is narcissism disguised as altruism and I doubt you even really believe it. According to that logic we should stop funding Ukraine to fight against Russia.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Has he reached peak Jenrick yet?
Probably not. The guy seems to have a lot of energy. Shame he can't find a productive outlet for it.
Seems to be annoying the right people though
That's a depressingly low bar to judge a politician by.
Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey has just finished at the Treasury Select Committee where he was asked why, when the ONS’ growth figures look so promising for the Chancellor, BoE staff said in their latest report that underlying GDP growth was actually zero in the first quarter of the year.His answer was revealing:
“The challenge we have at the moment is that the forward-looking sort of evidence on activity in the economy so the surveys are nothing like as strong as that. So there is a disjoint if you like between that number and and and and the pattern we get from the surveys and the evidence.”
The advice of John Bolton (Trump's National Security Adviser from 2018 to 2019, who was dumped when he insisted on not being a patsy) on that, after Trump was re-elected, was 'Tell him what he wants to hear on Defence budgets, with progress in the meantime, and make it long term enough that he will no longer the there."
I think Sky is writing about a hypothetical situation which may very well not ever exist.
Don't mention that the USA spent 3.4% in 2024, and that includes things like the Pacific Fleet that have precisely zero to do with NATO.
If Sir K has to respond, I think he will reaffirm 3% by 2034, and point out that a SDSR is always very broad brush, and perhaps talk about the other 1.5% for "defence-related infrastructure", which could well cover things like investment in railways.
NATO are expected to mandate 3.5% at their meeting at the end of this month
Also Starmer cannot afford anything without allocating the money and be seen to do so
Ambition is not an option
"Mandating" requires unanimity in NATO.
TBH I don't see it. I think it will be short of that, with a layer of fudge - but still ambitious. It will be more imo like strong encouragement.
This is half about a very real need to increase investment / spending, and half about the need to manage Trump.
But ... as ever in the interesting times we live in ... we shall see soon enough.
⚡⚡⚡Ukraine has struck the #CrimeanBridge for the third time. The explosives were planted on underwater pillars and detonated the first device this morning. The supports are badly damaged. 19 km long, with road and rail sections, built through complex geology with piles driven 90 meters deep. Cost? ~$4 billion. Now it’s broken — and repairs won’t be cheap. Russia built the bridge to connect with annexed Crimea and used it to provide its army with supplies to conduct war in Ukraine.
That's dambusters strategy - right up against the target and rely on the incompressibility of water to make the required charge smaller. I wonder how much damage it has done, and how they got it there?
At what point might some around Putin begin wondering whether they should have accepted the 30 day ceasefire for negotiations, rather than insisting on continued fighting?
The effect was known about long before the dam busters. It’s a variant of the bubble effect - often called the mining effect (from where it was first seen).
An explosion underwater creates a bubble. Which then collapses. If the bubble has formed against a surface (side or bottom of a ship, say), the surface is hit by a hammer blow of the water returning.
If it isn’t in contact with an object, the shockwave from the explosion and the physical movement of large amounts of water still does massive damage at a distance.
The remains of the bubble rise and re-expands (less depth, less pressure) and the cycle repeats. If deep enough, the result is a series of hammering shock waves, vibrating the whole structure massively.
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
The legal/activist class across Europe are like the monks and priests of the Catholic Church in northern and Western Europe circa 1500. Parasitic, doctrinaire, vain, myopic and greedy. And you can feel the resentment building and building. A Reformation is coming to sweep them away and it might be violent
That's a great analogy.
But it goes wider. Full on Pride shite at work today with some events stretching into August. A queer quiz. A gay tapestry. Marches all over the place. A fans for trans social.
⚡⚡⚡Ukraine has struck the #CrimeanBridge for the third time. The explosives were planted on underwater pillars and detonated the first device this morning. The supports are badly damaged. 19 km long, with road and rail sections, built through complex geology with piles driven 90 meters deep. Cost? ~$4 billion. Now it’s broken — and repairs won’t be cheap. Russia built the bridge to connect with annexed Crimea and used it to provide its army with supplies to conduct war in Ukraine.
That's dambusters strategy - right up against the target and rely on the incompressibility of water to make the required charge smaller. I wonder how much damage it has done, and how they got it there?
At what point might some around Putin begin wondering whether they should have accepted the 30 day ceasefire for negotiations, rather than insisting on continued fighting?
Allegedly Russia intended to launch a huge attack the day before the negotiations, using the planes that were destroyed by the drones 1 day earlier...
I would enjoy if there were another bank of lorry-hidden drones near whichever airfield Russia retire their reminaing strategic bomber fleet, 1/3 gone is good - 1/2 gone would be better.
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
The legal/activist class across Europe are like the monks and priests of the Catholic Church in northern and Western Europe circa 1500. Parasitic, doctrinaire, vain, myopic and greedy. And you can feel the resentment building and building. A Reformation is coming to sweep them away and it might be violent
Yes. Greenery is especially akin to pre-Reformation Catholicism. One can even purchase indulgences for one's sins in the form of carbon off-setting and other green initiatives. The most important thing is the outward profession of the faith, we must all do that.
The advice of John Bolton (Trump's National Security Adviser from 2018 to 2019, who was dumped when he insisted on not being a patsy) on that, after Trump was re-elected, was 'Tell him what he wants to hear on Defence budgets, with progress in the meantime, and make it long term enough that he will no longer the there."
I think Sky is writing about a hypothetical situation which may very well not ever exist.
Don't mention that the USA spent 3.4% in 2024, and that includes things like the Pacific Fleet that have precisely zero to do with NATO.
If Sir K has to respond, I think he will reaffirm 3% by 2034, and point out that a SDSR is always very broad brush, and perhaps talk about the other 1.5% for "defence-related infrastructure", which could well cover things like investment in railways.
NATO are expected to mandate 3.5% at their meeting at the end of this month
Also Starmer cannot afford anything without allocating the money and be seen to do so
Ambition is not an option
"Mandating" requires unanimity in NATO.
TBH I don't see it. I think it will be short of that, with a layer of fudge - but still ambitious. It will be more imo like strong encouragement.
You do not know that and maybe a wee bit of wishcasting
Anyway it will be known after the NATO meeting between 24th and 26th of this month
Indeed I assume Starmer will be present and have to sign the agreement
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
The legal/activist class across Europe are like the monks and priests of the Catholic Church in northern and Western Europe circa 1500. Parasitic, doctrinaire, vain, myopic and greedy. And you can feel the resentment building and building. A Reformation is coming to sweep them away and it might be violent
That's a great analogy.
But it goes wider. Full on Pride shite at work today with some events stretching into August. A queer quiz. A gay tapestry. Marches all over the place. A fans for trans social.
Who wants this shit?
Seriously - as if tapestries aren’t gay enough already - that big homoerotic one in Bayeaux for example.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Has he reached peak Jenrick yet?
Probably not. The guy seems to have a lot of energy. Shame he can't find a productive outlet for it.
Seems to be annoying the right people though
That's a depressingly low bar to judge a politician by.
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
The legal/activist class across Europe are like the monks and priests of the Catholic Church in northern and Western Europe circa 1500. Parasitic, doctrinaire, vain, myopic and greedy. And you can feel the resentment building and building. A Reformation is coming to sweep them away and it might be violent
That's a great analogy.
But it goes wider. Full on Pride shite at work today with some events stretching into August. A queer quiz. A gay tapestry. Marches all over the place. A fans for trans social.
Who wants this shit?
I am totally ungay, but your workplace sounds like fun.
Did you realise the company was this "right on" when you joined?
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
If we stopped funding proxy wars and spent more on development, there would be less for asylum seekers to run away from.
This is narcissism disguised as altruism and I doubt you even really believe it. According to that logic we should stop funding Ukraine to fight against Russia.
If we stop the forces driving asylum seekers, there would not be so many of them.
That is another very powerful video from Jenrick. He is GOOD at this
His media team are very slick. They know what they are doing, as those videos can also easily be chopped up into shorts.
However, this is really niche stuff, the public have no idea who this baldy bloke who represents terrorists is or really care. If he had gone after shoplifter or phone snatchers, I think they would have been a much bigger hit.
He ought to do a shoplifting video next.
Channel. That's were the action is. If he had the knackers for it, which I sincerely doubt, he should go to France and pay to have himself trafficked across to the UK. That would either be coruscating social media content or he'd drown. Win-win.
I thought for a moment you'd mis-typed Chanel and were suggesting he should shoplift some perfume!
Also, why are these doughnuts trying to import drugs like this? Like the footballer the other week bringing in suitcases of cannabis. The Albanians along with the North Africans have insane amounts of coke flowing through the Dutch ports and cannabis they just grow it hear now using bonded labour.
Maybe that's where they went wrong. Who consumes Angel Delight in 2025?
I didn't know it was even for sale, but apparently it is available in the supermarkets. I certainly haven't seen any of my friends with kids trying to serve it to them in the way as kids all me and mates got it for pudding most nights.
[Four Yorkshiremen] Angel Delight? Luxury! All we got was Tesco's own equivalent which always ended up a little bit lumpy [/Four Yorkshiremen]
(full disclosure, this actually happened in Essex, not Yorkshire)
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Repressive autocratic politicians rely for their success on promoting such sentiments. So long as you realise this.
No one in the USA would hesitate to criticise Pam Bondi, on the basis of her record, so why be reluctant to criticise her counterpart in this country on similar grounds?
I'm talking about this general contempt for "human rights" and "lawyers" and "international law" etc. There's no way I'd want any politician in power in this country who thinks like that. The irritations and inefficiencies caused by too much reverence for the law is nothing compared to the dangers of the opposite.
Luckily, twats like you with your views are on the way out
Say hi to the Vibeshift as you make your way to the Exit
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
If we stopped funding proxy wars and spent more on development, there would be less for asylum seekers to run away from.
This is narcissism disguised as altruism and I doubt you even really believe it. According to that logic we should stop funding Ukraine to fight against Russia.
If we stop the forces driving asylum seekers, there would not be so many of them.
If we stopped the forces driving Nazism - ie Jews - there wouldn’t be so many Nazis
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Repressive autocratic politicians rely for their success on promoting such sentiments. So long as you realise this.
No one in the USA would hesitate to criticise Pam Bondi, on the basis of her record, so why be reluctant to criticise her counterpart in this country on similar grounds?
I'm talking about this general contempt for "human rights" and "lawyers" and "international law" etc. There's no way I'd want any politician in power in this country who thinks like that. The irritations and inefficiencies caused by too much reverence for the law is nothing compared to the dangers of the opposite.
Luckily, twats like you with your views are on the way out
Say hi to the Vibeshift as you make your way to the Exit
I think it’s more that you’ve just turned into a grumpy old man
The worry fir those of us who want Labour out next time is Jenrick and Farage splitting the vote in a way it doesn’t seem like Kemi will, and allowing Sir Keir to win again whilst probably losing more votes.
Hopefully they’ll do a deal if Jenrick becomes Tory leader
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
If we stopped funding proxy wars and spent more on development, there would be less for asylum seekers to run away from.
This is narcissism disguised as altruism and I doubt you even really believe it. According to that logic we should stop funding Ukraine to fight against Russia.
If we stop the forces driving asylum seekers, there would not be so many of them.
If we stopped the forces driving Nazism - ie Jews - there wouldn’t be so many Nazis
Ha ha. If we stopped the Nazis, there would not have been so many Jewish refugees from the Nazis who were trying to rob and kill them.
I read that straight through. There are interesting points in there, especially around Jenrick's recent political movements sideways.
Suella Bravermann denouncing Bobby at Natcon 2024 for being a treacherous Tory-lefty was not one I expected. Handbags at dawn in the leadership contest?
I was quite surprised when it said "Owen Jones" at the bottom, not having read the author at the top.
So Lineker is off to some unknown station to .present the World Cup. Football.is largely a bore as the World Cup is a bore so they are well matched.
DaZone, DazNe, however you pronounce it is big for boxing and also big in the US and Europe for loads of sports. They have quietly been buying up lots of sporting rights.
I am enjoying the Tories dismissing Home Office statements linking boat crossings to weather. They were happy to link them when in government, but now dismiss them whilst in opposition.
The UK has had a remarkable year to date of good weather. Shock and indeed horror that small boats which need good weather are coming across in force. Politics has nothing to do with it.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Repressive autocratic politicians rely for their success on promoting such sentiments. So long as you realise this.
No one in the USA would hesitate to criticise Pam Bondi, on the basis of her record, so why be reluctant to criticise her counterpart in this country on similar grounds?
I'm talking about this general contempt for "human rights" and "lawyers" and "international law" etc. There's no way I'd want any politician in power in this country who thinks like that. The irritations and inefficiencies caused by too much reverence for the law is nothing compared to the dangers of the opposite.
Luckily, twats like you with your views are on the way out
Say hi to the Vibeshift as you make your way to the Exit
I think it’s more that you’ve just turned into a grumpy old man
I’ve just had my second glass of phenomenal Luxembourgeois Riesling, in the Moselle sun. I couldn’t be further from grumpy
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
If we stopped funding proxy wars and spent more on development, there would be less for asylum seekers to run away from.
This is narcissism disguised as altruism and I doubt you even really believe it. According to that logic we should stop funding Ukraine to fight against Russia.
If we stop the forces driving asylum seekers, there would not be so many of them.
Yes, well a) good luck in stopping the entire Middle East and North Africa to stop behaving like medeival twatblankets, and b) on the occasions when we do try and stop the entire MENA from behaving like medeival twatblankets it tends not to go particularly well, and c) on the occasions when we do try and stop the entire MENA from behaving like medeival twatblankets we tend to get lectures about imperialism and white saviour syndrome.
I've just finished 'A history of the world in 47 borders' by John Elledge. It's very good. But it also reads like it's written by a Guardian journalist (it is) for whom everything is the fault of the British. It's slightly jarring how he moves so effortlessly for castigating the British for intervening too much to castigating the British for intervening too little almost, it seems, without noticing himself doing so.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Has he reached peak Jenrick yet?
Probably not. The guy seems to have a lot of energy. Shame he can't find a productive outlet for it.
Seems to be annoying the right people though
That's a depressingly low bar to judge a politician by.
You do understand politics though
I try my best, yes. And I'm perfectly happy for Farage and Jenrick to duke it out for the simpleton vote.
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
The legal/activist class across Europe are like the monks and priests of the Catholic Church in northern and Western Europe circa 1500. Parasitic, doctrinaire, vain, myopic and greedy. And you can feel the resentment building and building. A Reformation is coming to sweep them away and it might be violent
That's a great analogy.
But it goes wider. Full on Pride shite at work today with some events stretching into August. A queer quiz. A gay tapestry. Marches all over the place. A fans for trans social.
Who wants this shit?
I am totally ungay, but your workplace sounds like fun.
Did you realise the company was this "right on" when you joined?
All companies are like this now. All of them.
The only acceptable response is to cheer and amplify it. To do anything else risks you being labelled as a homophobe, and we all know what that means.
So, this absurd foghorning goes on - despite most people not really caring and being somewhat fed up with it all.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Repressive autocratic politicians rely for their success on promoting such sentiments. So long as you realise this.
No one in the USA would hesitate to criticise Pam Bondi, on the basis of her record, so why be reluctant to criticise her counterpart in this country on similar grounds?
I'm talking about this general contempt for "human rights" and "lawyers" and "international law" etc. There's no way I'd want any politician in power in this country who thinks like that. The irritations and inefficiencies caused by too much reverence for the law is nothing compared to the dangers of the opposite.
Luckily, twats like you with your views are on the way out
Say hi to the Vibeshift as you make your way to the Exit
I think it’s more that you’ve just turned into a grumpy old man
I’ve just had my second glass of phenomenal Luxembourgeois Riesling, in the Moselle sun. I couldn’t be further from grumpy
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Repressive autocratic politicians rely for their success on promoting such sentiments. So long as you realise this.
No one in the USA would hesitate to criticise Pam Bondi, on the basis of her record, so why be reluctant to criticise her counterpart in this country on similar grounds?
I'm talking about this general contempt for "human rights" and "lawyers" and "international law" etc. There's no way I'd want any politician in power in this country who thinks like that. The irritations and inefficiencies caused by too much reverence for the law is nothing compared to the dangers of the opposite.
Luckily, twats like you with your views are on the way out
Say hi to the Vibeshift as you make your way to the Exit
I think it’s more that you’ve just turned into a grumpy old man
There is a touch of the Meldrews with all this, isn't there.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Repressive autocratic politicians rely for their success on promoting such sentiments. So long as you realise this.
No one in the USA would hesitate to criticise Pam Bondi, on the basis of her record, so why be reluctant to criticise her counterpart in this country on similar grounds?
I'm talking about this general contempt for "human rights" and "lawyers" and "international law" etc. There's no way I'd want any politician in power in this country who thinks like that. The irritations and inefficiencies caused by too much reverence for the law is nothing compared to the dangers of the opposite.
Luckily, twats like you with your views are on the way out
Say hi to the Vibeshift as you make your way to the Exit
I think it’s more that you’ve just turned into a grumpy old man
I’ve just had my second glass of phenomenal Luxembourgeois Riesling, in the Moselle sun. I couldn’t be further from grumpy
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
The legal/activist class across Europe are like the monks and priests of the Catholic Church in northern and Western Europe circa 1500. Parasitic, doctrinaire, vain, myopic and greedy. And you can feel the resentment building and building. A Reformation is coming to sweep them away and it might be violent
That's a great analogy.
But it goes wider. Full on Pride shite at work today with some events stretching into August. A queer quiz. A gay tapestry. Marches all over the place. A fans for trans social.
Who wants this shit?
I am totally ungay, but your workplace sounds like fun.
Did you realise the company was this "right on" when you joined?
All companies are like this now. All of them.
The only acceptable response is to cheer and amplify it. To do anything else risks you being labelled as a homophobe, and we all know what that means.
So, this absurd foghorning goes on - despite most people not really caring and being somewhat fed up with it all.
That’s not my experience at double digit organisations across both engineering and law. You can delete DEI emails. You can refuse to put pronouns in email signatures. You don’t have to attend pride events. Nobody cares. It’s all in your head.
I do all of those things and nobody thinks I am a homophobe because, well, I’m not.
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Repressive autocratic politicians rely for their success on promoting such sentiments. So long as you realise this.
No one in the USA would hesitate to criticise Pam Bondi, on the basis of her record, so why be reluctant to criticise her counterpart in this country on similar grounds?
I'm talking about this general contempt for "human rights" and "lawyers" and "international law" etc. There's no way I'd want any politician in power in this country who thinks like that. The irritations and inefficiencies caused by too much reverence for the law is nothing compared to the dangers of the opposite.
Luckily, twats like you with your views are on the way out
Say hi to the Vibeshift as you make your way to the Exit
I think it’s more that you’ve just turned into a grumpy old man
There is a touch of the Meldrews with all this, isn't there.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Has he reached peak Jenrick yet?
Probably not. The guy seems to have a lot of energy. Shame he can't find a productive outlet for it.
Seems to be annoying the right people though
That's a depressingly low bar to judge a politician by.
The trollification of politics. It's been building for a while, and not just here.
At least giggling into the sea implied a certain joyfulness. This is more snarking into the sea.
I was in a Co-Op yesterday, the shelves were still empty.
Maybe people who run computer systems have become too complacent recently.
Co-Op are discovering what happens when you don’t use your IT systems.
M&S are discovering what happens when you third party IT partner doesn’t pick up on the fact the systems were compromised a while back and they’ve set things up to explode at a time of the hackers choosing
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Repressive autocratic politicians rely for their success on promoting such sentiments. So long as you realise this.
No one in the USA would hesitate to criticise Pam Bondi, on the basis of her record, so why be reluctant to criticise her counterpart in this country on similar grounds?
I'm talking about this general contempt for "human rights" and "lawyers" and "international law" etc. There's no way I'd want any politician in power in this country who thinks like that. The irritations and inefficiencies caused by too much reverence for the law is nothing compared to the dangers of the opposite.
Luckily, twats like you with your views are on the way out
Say hi to the Vibeshift as you make your way to the Exit
I'll be happy to if the country goes to the dogs like that. Too old to fight.
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
The legal/activist class across Europe are like the monks and priests of the Catholic Church in northern and Western Europe circa 1500. Parasitic, doctrinaire, vain, myopic and greedy. And you can feel the resentment building and building. A Reformation is coming to sweep them away and it might be violent
That's a great analogy.
But it goes wider. Full on Pride shite at work today with some events stretching into August. A queer quiz. A gay tapestry. Marches all over the place. A fans for trans social.
Who wants this shit?
I am totally ungay, but your workplace sounds like fun.
Did you realise the company was this "right on" when you joined?
All companies are like this now. All of them.
The only acceptable response is to cheer and amplify it. To do anything else risks you being labelled as a homophobe, and we all know what that means.
So, this absurd foghorning goes on - despite most people not really caring and being somewhat fed up with it all.
It sounds good to me.
I am old enough to remember the days when a line manager would call one a f*****' g*y, or a g*y b****** when one missed KPI targets.
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
If we stopped funding proxy wars and spent more on development, there would be less for asylum seekers to run away from.
This is narcissism disguised as altruism and I doubt you even really believe it. According to that logic we should stop funding Ukraine to fight against Russia.
If we stop the forces driving asylum seekers, there would not be so many of them.
If we stopped the forces driving Nazism - ie Jews - there wouldn’t be so many Nazis
Ha ha. If we stopped the Nazis, there would not have been so many Jewish refugees from the Nazis who were trying to rob and kill them.
We stopped the Nazis by funding the military, not lawyers.
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
The legal/activist class across Europe are like the monks and priests of the Catholic Church in northern and Western Europe circa 1500. Parasitic, doctrinaire, vain, myopic and greedy. And you can feel the resentment building and building. A Reformation is coming to sweep them away and it might be violent
That's a great analogy.
But it goes wider. Full on Pride shite at work today with some events stretching into August. A queer quiz. A gay tapestry. Marches all over the place. A fans for trans social.
Who wants this shit?
I am totally ungay, but your workplace sounds like fun.
Did you realise the company was this "right on" when you joined?
All companies are like this now. All of them.
The only acceptable response is to cheer and amplify it. To do anything else risks you being labelled as a homophobe, and we all know what that means.
So, this absurd foghorning goes on - despite most people not really caring and being somewhat fed up with it all.
That’s not my experience at double digit organisations across both engineering and law. You can delete DEI emails. You can refuse to put pronouns in email signatures. You don’t have to attend pride events. Nobody cares. It’s all in your head.
I do all of those things and nobody thinks I am a homophobe because, well, I’m not.
I've managed to dodge putting pronouns in my email signature in academia. It's a complete non-issue. Yes, we get emails every week about whichever awareness week/month/year it is, but most just ignore it.
I also don't wear a lanyard My ID/swipe card stays in my wallet.
I am enjoying the Tories dismissing Home Office statements linking boat crossings to weather. They were happy to link them when in government, but now dismiss them whilst in opposition.
The UK has had a remarkable year to date of good weather. Shock and indeed horror that small boats which need good weather are coming across in force. Politics has nothing to do with it.
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Has he reached peak Jenrick yet?
Probably not. The guy seems to have a lot of energy. Shame he can't find a productive outlet for it.
Seems to be annoying the right people though
That's a depressingly low bar to judge a politician by.
The trollification of politics. It's been building for a while, and not just here.
At least giggling into the sea implied a certain joyfulness. This is more snarking into the sea.
Thank goodness Jenrick is a clean skin and has never been involved in recent governments
Well done Robert Jenrick on calling out Starmer’s man Hermer in his latest video. There is a big market in voters who don’t like soppy human rights lawyers who take the side of people that want to kill us, and we’ve got two in charge
Everyone should get legal representation, whatever their alleged crimes, regardless of whether they are proved innocent or guilty.
Jenrick's assertion in the video is that cab rank rules did not apply to the cases in question and that he sought them out. Legal minds on here can tell us if this is the case.
Yes, that is the key point. Jenrick explicitly states that Hermer chose to defend multiple people involved in terrorism against us. If that’s untrue and it was the cab rank rule, Jenrick has told outright lies and should be criticised, if Hermer made a choice to defend them pro bono, then he’s not who I would want as AG, and it shines a light on Sir Keir’s philosophy
The Spectator and Telegraph have both run long pieces examining how the AG and other lawyers do this
And fair play to them - if they specialise in human rights law and these are the cases where they think they can help: they take them on. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about it and it’s all above board
However it is quite a CV, which is what Jenrick is focusing on
Yes, no one is saying he should be sacked because these things were illegal, that’s a straw man. Jenrick is just showing people Hermer’s values, and by extension those of Sir Keir
Yes exactly. Hermer has done nothing wrong or illegal. Indeed there’s a decent case for applauding him - helping the underdogs in each case (against HMG/Britain, generally)
But he’s no longer a private citizen with job in the law, he’s been appointed to a very senior political role and now his track record is - also quite fairly - being assessed for its political optics. And it looks bad
Or good. It all depends your instinctive reaction to the term "Human Rights".
Do you feel a warm glow? Or do you recoil at the notion of there being such a thing (especially when it comes to people you don't like)?
Hermer is a deeply questionable character and I despise his views, I also believe he and his ilk are a menace to Britain. If Jenrick destroys his career I shall quietly cheer
Apart from that I’m sure he’s a lovely guy. I might never have cared about him if he’d remained a private citizen But by taking a very senior political role he has to accept contempt from people that loathe his politics (like me). I also pay his wages with my taxes. So fuck him
Repressive autocratic politicians rely for their success on promoting such sentiments. So long as you realise this.
No one in the USA would hesitate to criticise Pam Bondi, on the basis of her record, so why be reluctant to criticise her counterpart in this country on similar grounds?
I'm talking about this general contempt for "human rights" and "lawyers" and "international law" etc. There's no way I'd want any politician in power in this country who thinks like that. The irritations and inefficiencies caused by too much reverence for the law is nothing compared to the dangers of the opposite.
Luckily, twats like you with your views are on the way out
Say hi to the Vibeshift as you make your way to the Exit
I think it’s more that you’ve just turned into a grumpy old man
I’ve just had my second glass of phenomenal Luxembourgeois Riesling, in the Moselle sun. I couldn’t be further from grumpy
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Has he reached peak Jenrick yet?
Probably not. The guy seems to have a lot of energy. Shame he can't find a productive outlet for it.
Seems to be annoying the right people though
That's a depressingly low bar to judge a politician by.
The trollification of politics. It's been building for a while, and not just here.
At least giggling into the sea implied a certain joyfulness. This is more snarking into the sea.
It's crass and tedious but that's not the main concern. The main concern is that almost without exception the politicians who foster this wall-to-wall crap and benefit from it are either racists or con merchants.
The system of international law/human rights either needs to be changed or it will be overturned entirely.
The legal/activist class across Europe are like the monks and priests of the Catholic Church in northern and Western Europe circa 1500. Parasitic, doctrinaire, vain, myopic and greedy. And you can feel the resentment building and building. A Reformation is coming to sweep them away and it might be violent
That's a great analogy.
But it goes wider. Full on Pride shite at work today with some events stretching into August. A queer quiz. A gay tapestry. Marches all over the place. A fans for trans social.
Who wants this shit?
I am totally ungay, but your workplace sounds like fun.
Did you realise the company was this "right on" when you joined?
All companies are like this now. All of them.
The only acceptable response is to cheer and amplify it. To do anything else risks you being labelled as a homophobe, and we all know what that means.
So, this absurd foghorning goes on - despite most people not really caring and being somewhat fed up with it all.
It sounds good to me.
I am old enough to remember the days when a line manager would call one a f*****' g*y, or a g*y b****** when one missed KPI targets.
It doesn't have to be one or the other though, does it? Could we not try just quiet acceptance? Surely a world is possible where we neither laud nor vilify the gays? At least, not for three months a year?
Gerry Adams. Shamima Begum. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man.
Lord Hermer has spent much of his life defending those who hate Britain.
Why on earth did Starmer hand-pick him to be Attorney General?
So what's Jenrick's solution? Lawyers shouldn't take cases involving people on Jenrick's disapproval list, or if they do they should then be debarred from certain jobs?
Maybe remain independant of politics ?
So the 'debarred from certain jobs' option.
This is a bizarre line of questioning. Jenrick's solution to Starmer appointing the wrong people is to win power and appoint the right people.
So the solution to this particular moral quandary - and presumably many others - is to have the infallible Jenrick pronounce upon it. Doesn't sound like much of a solution to me.
How about we have something called democracy where people can vote to decide who gets to pronounce upon it? We could have something called an opposition so the incumbent could be held to account? How does that sound to you?
Let's not forget the need to hold Robert Jenrick to account for being cheap and nasty. No reason why he gets a pass just because he doesn't have a proper job.
True, but there's a risk that the more you hold him to account, the bigger his platform will become. The safer thing would be to ignore him.
I do tend to. This was just a quick in-and-out on the matter. Parting comment: Jenrick is fast moving into 'overrated' territory. SKS will not be losing sleep over him.
Has he reached peak Jenrick yet?
Probably not. The guy seems to have a lot of energy. Shame he can't find a productive outlet for it.
Seems to be annoying the right people though
That's a depressingly low bar to judge a politician by.
The trollification of politics. It's been building for a while, and not just here.
At least giggling into the sea implied a certain joyfulness. This is more snarking into the sea.
It's crass and tedious but that's not the main concern. The main concern is that almost without exception the politicians who foster this wall-to-wall crap and benefit from it are either racists or con merchants.
Are you War Ready? The new marketing campaign for all firms. Are you War Ready? Weetabix will get you there Are you War Ready? Canestan pessary will shift that pacifist thrush
Comments
This is different to attacking a judge, because of the cases he took on as an advocate, because a judge is not a politician.
Life, mes amis, is good
I’ve not seen it for years.
Didn't think we had had an general election in Netherlands for a few weeks...
Not amazing. But edible. Actual flavour
In past cases, grooming has been used as a mitigation in sentencing for crimes, I believe.
Lee Jae-myung (DP) 51.7%
Kim Moon-soo (PPP) 39.3%
Lee Jun-seok (RP) 7.7%
Kwon Young-guk (DLP) 1.3%
https://x.com/gimyejin/status/1929862036617412703
Looks as though the liberal-ish candidate has sealed his expected win.
@dw_politics
JUST IN: A German court rules government's move to turn away asylum seekers at border is unlawful- in a blow to Chancellor Merz."
https://x.com/dw_politics/status/1929550116957860323
UK corporation tax is a mess. It makes us uncompetitive, not just vs Singapore, Ireland and other countries that tax companies less than us, but vs countries like Sweden and Denmark, who have higher tax but a better system.
https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1929453488410415422
Tesla sales in Sweden in May 2025 were -46.2% for Model Y and -79.8% for Model 3 compared to May 2024. Expert interviewed in Swedish media said that the only way she sees this changing is if Musk is replaced as Tesla owner and new ownership distances itself from him.
https://bsky.app/profile/chrchristensen.bsky.social/post/3lqp3nwigbc2q
⚡⚡⚡Ukraine has struck the #CrimeanBridge for the third time. The explosives were planted on underwater pillars and detonated the first device this morning. The supports are badly damaged. 19 km long, with road and rail sections, built through complex geology with piles driven 90 meters deep. Cost? ~$4 billion. Now it’s broken — and repairs won’t be cheap. Russia built the bridge to connect with annexed Crimea and used it to provide its army with supplies to conduct war in Ukraine.
https://x.com/KShevchenkoReal/status/1929861785785348376
And this Riesling - Domaine Clos Des Rochers (2022) - is genuinely world class. Who knew Riesling can be THIS good?
And I’m staring at the vineyards of the Moselle, in the vivid sunshine. Later I might eat an eel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Dutch_general_election#Seats
The advice of John Bolton (Trump's National Security Adviser from 2018 to 2019, who was dumped when he insisted on not being a patsy) on that, after Trump was re-elected, was 'Tell him what he wants to hear on Defence budgets, with progress in the meantime, and make it long term enough that he will no longer the there."
I think Sky is writing about a hypothetical situation which may very well not ever exist.
Don't mention that the USA spent 3.4% in 2024, and that includes things like the Pacific Fleet that have precisely zero to do with NATO.
If Sir K has to respond, I think he will reaffirm 3% by 2034, and point out that a SDSR is always very broad brush, and perhaps talk about the other 1.5% for "defenc -related infrastructure", which could well cover things like investment in railways.
Bridge traffic reportedly continues.
For the third time, Ukraine’s Security Service blew up the Crimean Bridge—this time underwater.
The operation took months. Underwater supports were badly damaged at the base. The bridge is now in critical condition.
https://x.com/United24media/status/1929860950514921815
Also Starmer cannot afford anything without allocating the money and be seen to do so
Ambition is not an option
Although he has a habit of looking at things multiple times which when it comes to VAT may or may not make sense. Although I wouldn’t want to cover what VAT covers I do think reducing the threshold at which companies start collecting it makes sense
At what point might some around Putin begin wondering whether they should have accepted the 30 day ceasefire for negotiations, rather than insisting on continued fighting?
https://www.reuters.com/world/italy-expects-nato-raise-defence-spending-target-between-35-5-gdp-2025-05-21/
But it goes wider. Full on Pride shite at work today with some events stretching into August. A queer quiz. A gay tapestry. Marches all over the place. A fans for trans social.
Who wants this shit?
Certainly not haute cuisine but full of flavour and crunchy burnt umami fun. And in the world of terrible pasta, pork dumpfelkokkenschlag and awful “mango Provençal salad with croutons” it’s a godsend
“The challenge we have at the moment is that the forward-looking sort of evidence on activity in the economy so the surveys are nothing like as strong as that. So there is a disjoint if you like between that number and and and and the pattern we get from the surveys and the evidence.”
TBH I don't see it. I think it will be short of that, with a layer of fudge - but still ambitious. It will be more imo like strong encouragement.
This is half about a very real need to increase investment / spending, and half about the need to manage Trump.
But ... as ever in the interesting times we live in ... we shall see soon enough.
An explosion underwater creates a bubble. Which then collapses. If the bubble has formed against a surface (side or bottom of a ship, say), the surface is hit by a hammer blow of the water returning.
If it isn’t in contact with an object, the shockwave from the explosion and the physical movement of large amounts of water still does massive damage at a distance.
The remains of the bubble rise and re-expands (less depth, less pressure) and the cycle repeats. If deep enough, the result is a series of hammering shock waves, vibrating the whole structure massively.
That would be a classic double tap.
Anyway it will be known after the NATO meeting between 24th and 26th of this month
Indeed I assume Starmer will be present and have to sign the agreement
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/bayeux-tapestry-93-penises-offer-clues-2639001?amp=1
Did you realise the company was this "right on" when you joined?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-4799wY8mA
Angel Delight? Luxury! All we got was Tesco's own equivalent which always ended up a little bit lumpy
[/Four Yorkshiremen]
(full disclosure, this actually happened in Essex, not Yorkshire)
Say hi to the Vibeshift as you make your way to the Exit
Hopefully they’ll do a deal if Jenrick becomes Tory leader
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-06-03/m-and-s-faces-unprecedented-customer-lawsuit-over-cyberattack-data-breach
Suella Bravermann denouncing Bobby at Natcon 2024 for being a treacherous Tory-lefty was not one I expected. Handbags at dawn in the leadership contest?
I was quite surprised when it said "Owen Jones" at the bottom, not having read the author at the top.
The UK has had a remarkable year to date of good weather. Shock and indeed horror that small boats which need good weather are coming across in force. Politics has nothing to do with it.
Here’s the wine
Check out this wine. I scanned it with the @Vivino app: https://www.vivino.com/wines/176655908
Luckily you aren’t forced to watch it.
I've just finished 'A history of the world in 47 borders' by John Elledge. It's very good. But it also reads like it's written by a Guardian journalist (it is) for whom everything is the fault of the British. It's slightly jarring how he moves so effortlessly for castigating the British for intervening too much to castigating the British for intervening too little almost, it seems, without noticing himself doing so.
The only acceptable response is to cheer and amplify it. To do anything else risks you being labelled as a homophobe, and we all know what that means.
So, this absurd foghorning goes on - despite most people not really caring and being somewhat fed up with it all.
Really quite a wine
Probably the best Riesling I’ve ever had
I do all of those things and nobody thinks I am a homophobe because, well, I’m not.
At least giggling into the sea implied a certain joyfulness. This is more snarking into the sea.
M&S are discovering what happens when you third party IT partner doesn’t pick up on the fact the systems were compromised a while back and they’ve set things up to explode at a time of the hackers choosing
I am old enough to remember the days when a line manager would call one a f*****' g*y, or a g*y b****** when one missed KPI targets.
I also don't wear a lanyard
https://www.winespectator.com/articles/what-causes-petrol-note-in-aged-riesling-57107
Are you War Ready? Weetabix will get you there
Are you War Ready? Canestan pessary will shift that pacifist thrush