That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
F*ck. We're doomed then.
We are with that attitude.
Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.
Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.
Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.
Trouble is, that's not true any more
Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies
Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes
As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here
The Trump administration is preparing to cancel a large swath of federal funding for California, an effort which could begin as soon as Friday, according to multiple sources.
Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. On Capitol Hill, at least one committee was told recently by a whistleblower that all research grants to the state were going to be cancelled, according to one of the sources familiar with the matter.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
F*ck. We're doomed then.
We are with that attitude.
Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.
Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.
Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.
Trouble is, that's not true any more
Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies
Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes
As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
F*ck. We're doomed then.
We are with that attitude.
Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.
Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.
Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.
Trouble is, that's not true any more
Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies
Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes
As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Don’t get me overexcited
By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.
Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like
Howling at the moon, I think.
Yaxley-Lennon declared himself bankrupt in 2021, when he was trying to avoid taking responsibility for himself.
Therefore he is not eligible to be an MP, and therefore not PM.
Sadly once the bankruptcy order is discharged then the person can stand, internet tells me that's typically after 12 months, 5 years maximum. May 2022 in S Y-L's case. UK is overly lenient on people who deliberately evade their financial responsibilities in my opinion.
Nikolai Tolstoy did much the same after he lost the Aldington libel case. He continued to live in luxury while Aldington's legal costs nearly bankrupted him.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.
They send someone round.
The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.
That's one option.
Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Don’t get me overexcited
By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.
Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like
Howling at the moon, I think.
Yaxley-Lennon declared himself bankrupt in 2021, when he was trying to avoid taking responsibility for himself.
Therefore he is not eligible to be an MP, and therefore not PM.
Sadly once the bankruptcy order is discharged then the person can stand, internet tells me that's typically after 12 months, 5 years maximum. May 2022 in S Y-L's case. UK is overly lenient on people who deliberately evade their financial responsibilities in my opinion.
Nikolai Tolstoy did much the same after he lost the Aldington libel case. He continued to live in luxury while Aldington's legal costs nearly bankrupted him.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.
They send someone round.
The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.
That's one option.
Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
F*ck. We're doomed then.
We are with that attitude.
Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.
Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.
Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.
Trouble is, that's not true any more
Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies
Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes
As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here
Man, I must have imagined that Singaporean election last month.
Does this sound like a democracy, to you?
"Singapore has been governed by one dominant party, the People's Action Party (PAP), since independence in 1965. While other political parties exist and occasionally win seats in parliament, the PAP has maintained continuous control, overwhelmingly winning every general election since independence."
Let's see how they did THIS time....
Ah yes
PAP: 83 seats Workers: 10 Progress: 2
Like I said, we will have PRETENDY democracy - like constitutional monarchy - and Singapore leads the way
Freddie Sayers @freddiesayers · 30m Steve Bannon tells me:
- this is a great day for the MAGA movement - Musk is a security risk and should be investigated/deported - his companies SpaceX and Starlink should be seized by the government - Musk is the Communist, not him
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.
They send someone round.
The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.
That's one option.
Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.
I can use a drill and screwdriver, but also I can't be arsed
John Lewis sounds like a good option. And I also need new cushions and everything
Competency is no longer a priority. Voters are willing to try something – anything – new, just as long as it can induce a faith in what they are led to believe will be a better future. Read more analysis from our researcher @ChrisRSurvation here:"
"Despite voter uncertainties over Farage’s ability as a prospective Prime Minister or Reform’s trustworthiness in certain policy domains, Farage was nonetheless at the top of voters’ minds when it came to his skill as a party leader.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
Competency is no longer a priority. Voters are willing to try something – anything – new, just as long as it can induce a faith in what they are led to believe will be a better future. Read more analysis from our researcher @ChrisRSurvation here:"
"Despite voter uncertainties over Farage’s ability as a prospective Prime Minister or Reform’s trustworthiness in certain policy domains, Farage was nonetheless at the top of voters’ minds when it came to his skill as a party leader.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.
Is this PB or have I wandered onto Mumsnet?
If you wanted to be sexist, surely DIY (or not) conversations are fitting for Dadsnet?
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.
They send someone round.
The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.
That's one option.
Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.
I can use a drill and screwdriver, but also I can't be arsed
John Lewis sounds like a good option. And I also need new cushions and everything
Entire gaff is getting pepped
It is the business of the wealthy man To give employment to the artisan.
The only downside is that the enhanced GDP will make Rachel Reeves look good.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.
Is this PB or have I wandered onto Mumsnet?
Are you new here?
We talk about EVERYTHING. From global apocalypse to quantum physics to curry recipes to personal grief to the correct width of a British right of way, consequent on the Pathways Act (1867)
There was a "pervasive fraud environment" at one of the UK's largest trade unions Unite, an auditors' report obtained by the BBC has concluded.
In a highly critical 35-page document, auditors BDO said in the 2021 financial year "dominant personalities and a weak control environment facilitated opportunities to commit fraud" at the union.
The BDO report says there were "unusual relationships" between former senior staff and Unite's customers and suppliers, as well as a culture that "did not challenge" financial transactions and "failed to ensure" appropriate financial reporting.
This relates, in part, to the union spending £112m on building a hotel and conference centre in Birmingham.
The property has since been valued at a fraction of that sum and the auditors said today that Unite had taken a financial hit of £53.8m on the project. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1w3ye4p8l3o
The actually somewhat surprising details are things like the executive council not being required to provide details of business relationships, so that it is impossible to determine whether conflicts of interests have occured - surely anyone in a body seeing a detail like that knows the only purpose is to facilitate fraud and enable such a conflict to escape notice? I would struggle to believe anyone setting up such rules who claimed not to realise it would be abused.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.
We should do away with the American concept of checks and balances which is entirely alien to our system of government. Parliament should be able to do essentially anything that it likes, whether that's nationalising the health system or declaring war.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
No, they don't. Guard rails don't work, they never have done. Every example of guard rail that's been tried has failed.
The electorate needs to take responsibility for its choices.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.
Is this PB or have I wandered onto Mumsnet?
I've just received a photo of a seven month old eating spaghetti bolognese. In Edinburgh to be exact. Would you like to see it?
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Have you see this week's Newstatesman?
Cover story:
As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The Ikea blackout blinds that you can control remotely are quite good, I'm told. I have friends who have hooked them up to sensors to automatically adjust them based on the light, time of day/year etc.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
F*ck. We're doomed then.
We are with that attitude.
Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.
Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.
Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.
Trouble is, that's not true any more
Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies
Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes
As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here
Man, I must have imagined that Singaporean election last month.
Does this sound like a democracy, to you?
"Singapore has been governed by one dominant party, the People's Action Party (PAP), since independence in 1965. While other political parties exist and occasionally win seats in parliament, the PAP has maintained continuous control, overwhelmingly winning every general election since independence."
Let's see how they did THIS time....
Ah yes
PAP: 83 seats Workers: 10 Progress: 2
Like I said, we will have PRETENDY democracy - like constitutional monarchy - and Singapore leads the way
Somebody once said that Singapore is a democracy that feels like an enlightened despotism while (pre-1997) Hong Kong was an enlightened despotism that felt like a democracy.
Plenty of truth in that, though I always get a bit maudlin when I think of how the Chinese have ruined Hong Kong since we left.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The Ikea blackout blinds that you can control remotely are quite good, I'm told. I have friends who have hooked them up to sensors to automatically adjust them based on the light, time of day/year etc.
If you dance naked in front of your blindless and curtainless windows enough your neighbours will pay for your blinds
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
No, they don't. Guard rails don't work, they never have done. Every example of guard rail that's been tried has failed.
The electorate needs to take responsibility for its choices.
Swinney was given a gift by the Record. Promote yourself on the front page! Give it your best shot!
It failed. He failed. The SNP failed. Again.
Holyrood success still likely with split votes though?
A bit, but mitigated by the list system.
At the moment, the projected results look like a right bourach, with it very difficult to see who could form a government. A reduced and tired SNP likely to be largest party but miles away from a majority, and facing a pro-Union, but very divided, parliament.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.
Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary
"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"
Yes. Several times. Hillary's.
They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Have you see this week's Newstatesman?
Cover story:
As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.
There's bugger all difference between 5,634 and an average of 5,450.
And its a pathetically tiny amount that is a small fraction of what is needed.
Considering London's population has risen by 1.3 million in that time, there are 32 boroughs of London and there are an average of 2 people living in a home, then well over 20,000 homes should have been built in that time just to stand still, not a pathetically small 5,600.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Have you see this week's Newstatesman?
Cover story:
As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.
"What lurks outside Britain’s new builds is as troubling as the problems within. On modern estates, a sense of place and belonging can be an afterthought. I saw this at Millers Field, a tarmac tendril near the town of Sprowston in Norfolk, completed in 2019. Behind rings of high fences were grids and grids of boxy redbricks, with wholemeal roof tiles and narrow-eyed windows reflecting their identical neighbours – an aesthetic now almost invisibly familiar in the limbo between satellite towns and arable expanses across the UK. Beneath the drone of surrounding roundabouts, there was little activity beyond the modern-day agora of a Tesco Extra car park.
In an hour of wandering around, I discovered just two deserted playgrounds and a primary school. A resident told me of her longing for “just a little shop to pop out to”. I finally found the start of a cycle and footpath, but after following it for a few metres, it led without warning to the edge of an A-road. Car parks and bin sheds dominated the quiet closes within the estate where you might expect benches, flowerbeds and trees. Along what I assumed were walkways leading to the front doors, signs euphemistically warned cars to “slow down: shared surface”. In other words, a road."
“This is just one of many thousands of similar suburban, edge-of-city, Nowhereville-type places dominated by car-parking, without facilities and amenities properly integrated, not walkable,” said the architect Matthew Carmona, a professor at UCL’s Bartlett School of Planning...."
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
No, they don't. Guard rails don't work, they never have done. Every example of guard rail that's been tried has failed.
The electorate needs to take responsibility for its choices.
You've gone a bit 'bot'.
No, it's true.
You wanting to outsource the electorates responsibilities to a third party to shortcut the electorates choices is the problem.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.
Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary
"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"
Yes. Several times. Hillary's.
They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.
Can't fault them based on my experience.
How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Have you see this week's Newstatesman?
Cover story:
As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.
There's bugger all difference between 5,634 and an average of 5,450.
And its a pathetically tiny amount that is a small fraction of what is needed.
Considering London's population has risen by 1.3 million in that time, there are 32 boroughs of London and there are an average of 2 people living in a home, then well over 20,000 homes should have been built in that time just to stand still, not a pathetically small 5,600.
The article then goes on to explain in depth how utterly shit these new builds are.
I wouldn't touch a new build from one of the big boys with the proverbial.
Self build - yes. Small family builder been around generations - yes. Anyone listed on the stock market - forget it.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.
Is this PB or have I wandered onto Mumsnet?
I've just received a photo of a seven month old eating spaghetti bolognese. In Edinburgh to be exact. Would you like to see it?
This clearly isn't Mumsnet... If it was you would have posted the photo without asking...
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.
Is this PB or have I wandered onto Mumsnet?
I've just received a photo of a seven month old eating spaghetti bolognese. In Edinburgh to be exact. Would you like to see it?
This clearly isn't Mumsnet... If it was you would have posted the photo without asking...
If this was Mumsnet, then @TSE would be buying a lot more shoes me thinks.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Have you see this week's Newstatesman?
Cover story:
As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.
"What lurks outside Britain’s new builds is as troubling as the problems within. On modern estates, a sense of place and belonging can be an afterthought. I saw this at Millers Field, a tarmac tendril near the town of Sprowston in Norfolk, completed in 2019. Behind rings of high fences were grids and grids of boxy redbricks, with wholemeal roof tiles and narrow-eyed windows reflecting their identical neighbours – an aesthetic now almost invisibly familiar in the limbo between satellite towns and arable expanses across the UK. Beneath the drone of surrounding roundabouts, there was little activity beyond the modern-day agora of a Tesco Extra car park.
In an hour of wandering around, I discovered just two deserted playgrounds and a primary school. A resident told me of her longing for “just a little shop to pop out to”. I finally found the start of a cycle and footpath, but after following it for a few metres, it led without warning to the edge of an A-road. Car parks and bin sheds dominated the quiet closes within the estate where you might expect benches, flowerbeds and trees. Along what I assumed were walkways leading to the front doors, signs euphemistically warned cars to “slow down: shared surface”. In other words, a road."
“This is just one of many thousands of similar suburban, edge-of-city, Nowhereville-type places dominated by car-parking, without facilities and amenities properly integrated, not walkable,” said the architect Matthew Carmona, a professor at UCL’s Bartlett School of Planning...."
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
Absolutely nothing should be beyond the whim of the electorate.
The way to ensure liberty is to have an electorate that values it.
False safety blankets like you want just mean the electorate takes it for granted and goes against it, and liberties die then, because false protections are no protection at all.
Putin's Russia was in the ECHR. The ECHR did nothing to reign in Putin.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
F*ck. We're doomed then.
We are with that attitude.
Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.
Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.
Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.
Trouble is, that's not true any more
Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies
Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes
As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here
Man, I must have imagined that Singaporean election last month.
Does this sound like a democracy, to you?
"Singapore has been governed by one dominant party, the People's Action Party (PAP), since independence in 1965. While other political parties exist and occasionally win seats in parliament, the PAP has maintained continuous control, overwhelmingly winning every general election since independence."
Let's see how they did THIS time....
Ah yes
PAP: 83 seats Workers: 10 Progress: 2
Like I said, we will have PRETENDY democracy - like constitutional monarchy - and Singapore leads the way
Man, wait until I tell you about the 1984 US elections. 49 out of 50 states votes for Reagan.
If you do well, you get reelected.
That seems to be the very definition of democracy.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.
They send someone round.
The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.
That's one option.
Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.
Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary
"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"
Yes. Several times. Hillary's.
They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.
Can't fault them based on my experience.
How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?
I am genuinely clueless on this
Their website says from just £70.
I doubt that will happen in the real world mind.
We recently had roman blinds with auto electric roll up and down for a very big bay window and it was more like a grand.
They are certainly not cheap and certainly not cheap compared to getting a small set of step ladders and a drill and playing "I am DIY blinds".
But that's for people who have to buy their own furniture.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Would you feel the same way, if progressives had the majority of the vote?
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
F*ck. We're doomed then.
We are with that attitude.
Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.
Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.
Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.
Trouble is, that's not true any more
Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies
Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes
As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here
Man, I must have imagined that Singaporean election last month.
Does this sound like a democracy, to you?
"Singapore has been governed by one dominant party, the People's Action Party (PAP), since independence in 1965. While other political parties exist and occasionally win seats in parliament, the PAP has maintained continuous control, overwhelmingly winning every general election since independence."
Let's see how they did THIS time....
Ah yes
PAP: 83 seats Workers: 10 Progress: 2
Like I said, we will have PRETENDY democracy - like constitutional monarchy - and Singapore leads the way
Man, wait until I tell you about the 1984 US elections. 49 out of 50 states votes for Reagan.
If you do well, you get reelected.
That seems to be the very definition of democracy.
You'd have a point if America had voted 49 states Republican out of 50.... in every election since American Independence in 1776
Because that is the history of elections in Singapore. It is not a democracy as we know it. It is a single party autocracy, ruling a lot of state directed capitalism, with - crucially - English Common Law to temper things
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.
Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary
"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"
Yes. Several times. Hillary's.
They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.
Can't fault them based on my experience.
How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Would you feel the same way, if progressives had the majority of the vote?
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
F*ck. We're doomed then.
We are with that attitude.
Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.
Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.
Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.
Trouble is, that's not true any more
Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies
Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes
As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here
Man, I must have imagined that Singaporean election last month.
Does this sound like a democracy, to you?
"Singapore has been governed by one dominant party, the People's Action Party (PAP), since independence in 1965. While other political parties exist and occasionally win seats in parliament, the PAP has maintained continuous control, overwhelmingly winning every general election since independence."
Let's see how they did THIS time....
Ah yes
PAP: 83 seats Workers: 10 Progress: 2
Like I said, we will have PRETENDY democracy - like constitutional monarchy - and Singapore leads the way
Man, wait until I tell you about the 1984 US elections. 49 out of 50 states votes for Reagan.
If you do well, you get reelected.
That seems to be the very definition of democracy.
You'd have a point if America had voted 49 states Republican out of 50.... in every election since American Independence in 1776
Because that is the history of elections in Singapore. It is not a democracy as we know it. It is a single party autocracy, ruling a lot of state directed capitalism, with - crucially - English Common Law to temper things
Or it's a very successful government, and has therefore kept getting reelected.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Would you feel the same way, if progressives had the majority of the vote?
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Have you see this week's Newstatesman?
Cover story:
As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.
There's bugger all difference between 5,634 and an average of 5,450.
And its a pathetically tiny amount that is a small fraction of what is needed.
Considering London's population has risen by 1.3 million in that time, there are 32 boroughs of London and there are an average of 2 people living in a home, then well over 20,000 homes should have been built in that time just to stand still, not a pathetically small 5,600.
The article then goes on to explain in depth how utterly shit these new builds are.
I wouldn't touch a new build from one of the big boys with the proverbial.
Self build - yes. Small family builder been around generations - yes. Anyone listed on the stock market - forget it.
If you think a new build is shit, you should see the alternative of rented accommodation.
I own one of those new builds. Here in the North West, not Camden.
It is vastly better quality than the terrible, damp accommodation we were renting before we bought this.
My wife and I both agree our quality of life is much better in our own home.
We should break the oligopoly of developers by liberating planning, but not oppose developments. Any developments are better than none.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.
Is this PB or have I wandered onto Mumsnet?
If you wanted to be sexist, surely DIY (or not) conversations are fitting for Dadsnet?
You should spend more time on Mumsnet, if only from a political betting perspective. It's my first port of call after a fiscal event.
(I'm currently investigating dishwashers using it. We made a full set of bespoke curtains for our flat using their advice too - Leon eat your heart out.)
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Have you see this week's Newstatesman?
Cover story:
As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.
There's bugger all difference between 5,634 and an average of 5,450.
And its a pathetically tiny amount that is a small fraction of what is needed.
Considering London's population has risen by 1.3 million in that time, there are 32 boroughs of London and there are an average of 2 people living in a home, then well over 20,000 homes should have been built in that time just to stand still, not a pathetically small 5,600.
The article then goes on to explain in depth how utterly shit these new builds are.
I wouldn't touch a new build from one of the big boys with the proverbial.
Self build - yes. Small family builder been around generations - yes. Anyone listed on the stock market - forget it.
If you think a new build is shit, you should see the alternative of rented accommodation.
I own one of those new builds. Here in the North West, not Camden.
It is vastly better quality than the terrible, damp accommodation we were renting before we bought this.
My wife and I both agree our quality of life is much better in our own home.
We should break the oligopoly of developers by liberating planning, but not oppose developments. Any developments are better than none.
Ok. Glad it worked out for you. But there are so many stories about developers.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.
Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary
"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"
Yes. Several times. Hillary's.
They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.
Can't fault them based on my experience.
How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?
I am genuinely clueless on this
Have you considered asking ChatGPT?
Am I allowed to answer this?
Given that you are a mod, then I presume it is - and yes, of course I have. And ChatGPT has given me great advice, on all aspects of my domestic makeover. ChatGPT will even do mock-ups of your home interiors in your chosen new colours - you feed it a photo of your living room and say "what will this look like in Farrow and Ball's Byzantine Blue?" and it will do it for you, transform the room on screen. Incredible
HOWEVER I am aware these machines can hallucinate, so I wanted to know if ChatGPT's advice on blinds matches real world experience, on here
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.
They send someone round.
The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.
That's one option.
Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?
Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
Absolutely nothing should be beyond the whim of the electorate.
The way to ensure liberty is to have an electorate that values it.
False safety blankets like you want just mean the electorate takes it for granted and goes against it, and liberties die then, because false protections are no protection at all.
Putin's Russia was in the ECHR. The ECHR did nothing to reign in Putin.
Tankies used to point out that the constitution of the USSR guaranteed all kinds of freedoms. Awesome, eh?
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
Absolutely nothing should be beyond the whim of the electorate.
The way to ensure liberty is to have an electorate that values it.
False safety blankets like you want just mean the electorate takes it for granted and goes against it, and liberties die then, because false protections are no protection at all.
Putin's Russia was in the ECHR. The ECHR did nothing to reign in Putin.
So if a majority vote to oppress a minority that's fine because 'electorate'?
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Have you see this week's Newstatesman?
Cover story:
As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.
There's bugger all difference between 5,634 and an average of 5,450.
And its a pathetically tiny amount that is a small fraction of what is needed.
Considering London's population has risen by 1.3 million in that time, there are 32 boroughs of London and there are an average of 2 people living in a home, then well over 20,000 homes should have been built in that time just to stand still, not a pathetically small 5,600.
The article then goes on to explain in depth how utterly shit these new builds are.
I wouldn't touch a new build from one of the big boys with the proverbial.
Self build - yes. Small family builder been around generations - yes. Anyone listed on the stock market - forget it.
If you think a new build is shit, you should see the alternative of rented accommodation.
I own one of those new builds. Here in the North West, not Camden.
It is vastly better quality than the terrible, damp accommodation we were renting before we bought this.
My wife and I both agree our quality of life is much better in our own home.
We should break the oligopoly of developers by liberating planning, but not oppose developments. Any developments are better than none.
Ok. Glad it worked out for you. But there are so many stories about developers.
There are far, far more stories about landlords.
Avoiding a developer is great if you don't need one. If you do, then they're far better than nothing.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?
The fact they don't and ride roughshod repeatedly over what people want has created the environment in which Reform thrives. It also explains Brexit.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.
Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary
"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"
Yes. Several times. Hillary's.
They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.
Can't fault them based on my experience.
How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?
I am genuinely clueless on this
Have you considered asking ChatGPT?
Am I allowed to answer this?
Given that you are a mod, then I presume it is - and yes, of course I have. And ChatGPT has given me great advice, on all aspects of my domestic makeover. ChatGPT will even do mock-ups of your home interiors in your chosen new colours - you feed it a photo of your living room and say "what will this look like in Farrow and Ball's Byzantine Blue?" and it will do it for you, transform the room on screen. Incredible
HOWEVER I am aware these machines can hallucinate, so I wanted to know if ChatGPT's advice on blinds matches real world experience, on here
PB, you've gone a bit weird lately.
I mean, I can cope with the endless frothing about random islands in the Indian Ocean. I can cope with the endless hyperbole around a boring but functional government being the Worst Government Ever(TM). I can even cope with the genocide apologists.
But, the board's edgelord-in-chief getting you all discussing the best way to replace the blinds in your flat?! That's beyond the pale I'm afraid.
The thing that bothers me most about kinablu's idea that there are fundamentals the electorate shouldn't have a say on implementing
a) Who gets to decide what these fundamentals are? b) By what right do they decide c) How do I vote them out if we don't think those fundamentals are right
I am sure he would be the first to complain if they decided the fundamentals were
1) All things should be privatised including utilities and transport no exceptions 2) No one should have tax taken from them to support the unemployed because its not fair to take peoples money to support them 3) All socialists should be sent to reeducation camps for the criminally stupid
He merely imagines these fundamentals would be all things he supports which is why he thinks they are a good idea
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
Absolutely nothing should be beyond the whim of the electorate.
The way to ensure liberty is to have an electorate that values it.
False safety blankets like you want just mean the electorate takes it for granted and goes against it, and liberties die then, because false protections are no protection at all.
Putin's Russia was in the ECHR. The ECHR did nothing to reign in Putin.
So if a majority vote to oppress a minority that's fine because 'electorate'?
No, its not fine, but it will happen guard rail or not if that's what they want.
The way to prevent it from happening is to have an electorate that will stand against that, not a 'guard rail' that stands against it.
Because that 'guard rail' can very easily be abused in the wrong hands to have a minority be oppressing a majority.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?
Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
Absolutely nothing should be beyond the whim of the electorate.
The way to ensure liberty is to have an electorate that values it.
False safety blankets like you want just mean the electorate takes it for granted and goes against it, and liberties die then, because false protections are no protection at all.
Putin's Russia was in the ECHR. The ECHR did nothing to reign in Putin.
So if a majority vote to oppress a minority that's fine because 'electorate'?
The elephant in the room is that, left to their own devices, the electorate are far too soft. You're right that they need to be protected from their more destructive instincts, not because they are too brutish, but because they are too irresponsible.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?
Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
The Mail, GBNews and especially The Telegraph lost their shit after their team lost the last election. Unhinged headlines relating to Starmer, Reeves, Milliband and Khan, hour upon hour. PB is not far behind.
Trust the people so long as they vote Conservative/ Reform.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.
Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary
"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"
Yes. Several times. Hillary's.
They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.
Can't fault them based on my experience.
How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?
I am genuinely clueless on this
Have you considered asking ChatGPT?
Am I allowed to answer this?
Given that you are a mod, then I presume it is - and yes, of course I have. And ChatGPT has given me great advice, on all aspects of my domestic makeover. ChatGPT will even do mock-ups of your home interiors in your chosen new colours - you feed it a photo of your living room and say "what will this look like in Farrow and Ball's Byzantine Blue?" and it will do it for you, transform the room on screen. Incredible
HOWEVER I am aware these machines can hallucinate, so I wanted to know if ChatGPT's advice on blinds matches real world experience, on here
PB, you've gone a bit weird lately.
I mean, I can cope with the endless frothing about random islands in the Indian Ocean. I can cope with the endless hyperbole around a boring but functional government being the Worst Government Ever(TM). I can even cope with the genocide apologists.
But, the board's edgelord-in-chief getting you all discussing the best way to replace the blinds in your flat?! That's beyond the pale I'm afraid.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.
Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary
"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"
Yes. Several times. Hillary's.
They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.
Can't fault them based on my experience.
How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?
I am genuinely clueless on this
Have you considered asking ChatGPT?
Am I allowed to answer this?
Given that you are a mod, then I presume it is - and yes, of course I have. And ChatGPT has given me great advice, on all aspects of my domestic makeover. ChatGPT will even do mock-ups of your home interiors in your chosen new colours - you feed it a photo of your living room and say "what will this look like in Farrow and Ball's Byzantine Blue?" and it will do it for you, transform the room on screen. Incredible
HOWEVER I am aware these machines can hallucinate, so I wanted to know if ChatGPT's advice on blinds matches real world experience, on here
PB, you've gone a bit weird lately.
I mean, I can cope with the endless frothing about random islands in the Indian Ocean. I can cope with the endless hyperbole around a boring but functional government being the Worst Government Ever(TM). I can even cope with the genocide apologists.
But, the board's edgelord-in-chief getting you all discussing the best way to replace the blinds in your flat?! That's beyond the pale I'm afraid.
The thing that bothers me most about kinablu's idea that there are fundamentals the electorate shouldn't have a say on implementing
a) Who gets to decide what these fundamentals are? b) By what right do they decide c) How do I vote them out if we don't think those fundamentals are right
I am sure he would be the first to complain if they decided the fundamentals were
1) All things should be privatised including utilities and transport no exceptions 2) No one should have tax taken from them to support the unemployed because its not fair to take peoples money to support them 3) All socialists should be sent to reeducation camps for the criminally stupid
He merely imagines these fundamentals would be all things he supports which is why he thinks they are a good idea
3) is utterly ridiculous. All socialists will be gainfully employed under my benevolent UnDicatorship. They will be enlarging Rockall to form the largest naval base in the world. The good ones will get *big* teaspoons.
This will be mandatory under the Malmesbury Human Rights Act.
"If you were doubting that Nigel Farage had a serious chance of heading a hard-right British government in 2029, the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse just poured a bucket of particularly icy water over your head. Though Labour won the Scottish parliamentary byelection, defying predictions it would be beaten into third place, Reform UK chalked up more than a quarter of the vote – trailing the victors by an unsubstantial 1,500 voters.
This tells a devastating story. Nigel Farage’s outfit seriously outperformed the level of support indicated by Scottish polling: the last four surveys had Reform on between 12% and 19%, yet it secured 26% of the vote after standing here for the first time. This suggests it is mobilising previous non-voters whom pollsters are not picking up. The latest UK-wide YouGov poll, which asked people how they would vote if there were a general election tomorrow, put Reform in first place, eight points ahead of Labour. Imagine if that polling in fact underestimates their reach."
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.
Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary
"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"
Yes. Several times. Hillary's.
They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.
Can't fault them based on my experience.
How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?
I am genuinely clueless on this
Have you considered asking ChatGPT?
Am I allowed to answer this?
Given that you are a mod, then I presume it is - and yes, of course I have. And ChatGPT has given me great advice, on all aspects of my domestic makeover. ChatGPT will even do mock-ups of your home interiors in your chosen new colours - you feed it a photo of your living room and say "what will this look like in Farrow and Ball's Byzantine Blue?" and it will do it for you, transform the room on screen. Incredible
HOWEVER I am aware these machines can hallucinate, so I wanted to know if ChatGPT's advice on blinds matches real world experience, on here
Forget blinds. You've got lots of money. Get proper wooden shutters built into the window frames, French style. Warmer in winter. Probably £1-2k for measuring up, supply and fitting. Only takes the fitter a couple of hours.
"If you were doubting that Nigel Farage had a serious chance of heading a hard-right British government in 2029, the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse just poured a bucket of particularly icy water over your head. Though Labour won the Scottish parliamentary byelection, defying predictions it would be beaten into third place, Reform UK chalked up more than a quarter of the vote – trailing the victors by an unsubstantial 1,500 voters.
This tells a devastating story. Nigel Farage’s outfit seriously outperformed the level of support indicated by Scottish polling: the last four surveys had Reform on between 12% and 19%, yet it secured 26% of the vote after standing here for the first time. This suggests it is mobilising previous non-voters whom pollsters are not picking up. The latest UK-wide YouGov poll, which asked people how they would vote if there were a general election tomorrow, put Reform in first place, eight points ahead of Labour. Imagine if that polling in fact underestimates their reach."
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
F*ck. We're doomed then.
We are with that attitude.
Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.
Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.
Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.
Trouble is, that's not true any more
Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies
Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes
As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
Stansted is turning into quite a seductive airport. Just went from plane to the Stansted express to london in about 23 minutes and that included passports and hold luggage collection. Yes
Now the train will take 32 minutes to Tottenham Hale and then 15 minutes on the Tube to Kings X
Outbound was just as efficient. Luggage processing machines are eliminating the check in queue
Now all they need is contactless ticketing. Fancy calling yourself a "London" airport, but being outside the contactless ticketing area.
Southend Airport calls itself London, too, and is outside the area.
Same train company, Greater Anglia.
OTOH, the other company serving the Southend city area is c2c, which has contactless all the way out to Shoeburyness.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
Absolutely nothing should be beyond the whim of the electorate.
The way to ensure liberty is to have an electorate that values it.
False safety blankets like you want just mean the electorate takes it for granted and goes against it, and liberties die then, because false protections are no protection at all.
Putin's Russia was in the ECHR. The ECHR did nothing to reign in Putin.
So if a majority vote to oppress a minority that's fine because 'electorate'?
No, its not fine, but it will happen guard rail or not if that's what they want.
The way to prevent it from happening is to have an electorate that will stand against that, not a 'guard rail' that stands against it.
Because that 'guard rail' can very easily be abused in the wrong hands to have a minority be oppressing a majority.
'Guard rail' isn't a great analogy. What we're really talking about is entrenched rules with longstanding consensus.
Constitutions are, obviously, the ultimate example. And they too can be changed - but the threshold for change is set higher than just passing a law.
You can argues about the implementation, but pretending that stable societies don't require stable rules is pretty delusional.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.
Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary
"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"
Yes. Several times. Hillary's.
They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.
Can't fault them based on my experience.
How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?
I am genuinely clueless on this
Have you considered asking ChatGPT?
Am I allowed to answer this?
Given that you are a mod, then I presume it is - and yes, of course I have. And ChatGPT has given me great advice, on all aspects of my domestic makeover. ChatGPT will even do mock-ups of your home interiors in your chosen new colours - you feed it a photo of your living room and say "what will this look like in Farrow and Ball's Byzantine Blue?" and it will do it for you, transform the room on screen. Incredible
HOWEVER I am aware these machines can hallucinate, so I wanted to know if ChatGPT's advice on blinds matches real world experience, on here
PB, you've gone a bit weird lately.
I mean, I can cope with the endless frothing about random islands in the Indian Ocean. I can cope with the endless hyperbole around a boring but functional government being the Worst Government Ever(TM). I can even cope with the genocide apologists.
But, the board's edgelord-in-chief getting you all discussing the best way to replace the blinds in your flat?! That's beyond the pale I'm afraid.
Not his best hijack.
He played a blinder. The blinds leading the blind.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.
Is this PB or have I wandered onto Mumsnet?
Centrist (or not so centrist) Dadsnet.
The bland leading the blinds?
The Overton Window is so unstable it's hard to get yer curtains sorted.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.
They send someone round.
The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.
That's one option.
Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.
I can use a drill and screwdriver, but also I can't be arsed
John Lewis sounds like a good option. And I also need new cushions and everything
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?
Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
The Mail, GBNews and especially The Telegraph lost their shit after their team lost the last election. Unhinged headlines relating to Starmer, Reeves, Milliband and Khan, hour upon hour. PB is not far behind.
Trust the people so long as they vote Conservative/ Reform.
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.
They send someone round.
The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.
That's one option.
Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.
I can use a drill and screwdriver, but also I can't be arsed
John Lewis sounds like a good option. And I also need new cushions and everything
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?
The electorate.
Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.
God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.
They need some guard rails, is all.
What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.
No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated
Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?
Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer
You're wandering off point.
At least I have one
That is unnecessarily rude! Oh, I see....
I am at least someone not arguing we should subvert even the little democracy we have by suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to vote for things that violate Kinablu's sensibilities
That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover
My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?
Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.
They send someone round.
The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.
That's one option.
Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.
I can use a drill and screwdriver, but also I can't be arsed
John Lewis sounds like a good option. And I also need new cushions and everything
Entire gaff is getting pepped
I hear Lulu Lytle is very good.
I prefer Lululemon.
More for boriswives than Boris himself though. I hope.
Comments
Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Low,_1st_Baron_Aldington#Libel_case
Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.
"Singapore has been governed by one dominant party, the People's Action Party (PAP), since independence in 1965. While other political parties exist and occasionally win seats in parliament, the PAP has maintained continuous control, overwhelmingly winning every general election since independence."
Let's see how they did THIS time....
Ah yes
PAP: 83 seats
Workers: 10
Progress: 2
Like I said, we will have PRETENDY democracy - like constitutional monarchy - and Singapore leads the way
John Lewis sounds like a good option. And I also need new cushions and everything
Entire gaff is getting pepped
Competency is no longer a priority. Voters are willing to try something – anything – new, just as long as it can induce a faith in what they are led to believe will be a better future. Read more analysis from our researcher @ChrisRSurvation here:"
https://x.com/Survation/status/1931024658490401295
"Despite voter uncertainties over Farage’s ability as a prospective Prime Minister or Reform’s trustworthiness in certain policy domains, Farage was nonetheless at the top of voters’ minds when it came to his skill as a party leader.
Doing well as party leader:
Farage 53%
Badenoch 33%
Starmer 32%"
https://x.com/Survation/status/1931024656263225416
Ref 365, Lab 138, LD 64, SNP 36, Con 18
Ref maj 80
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=17&LAB=23&LIB=15&Reform=31&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
To give employment to the artisan.
The only downside is that the enhanced GDP will make Rachel Reeves look good.
Bull loose in Small Heath, Birmingham! Someone’s #EidMubarak lunch ruined
We talk about EVERYTHING. From global apocalypse to quantum physics to curry recipes to personal grief to the correct width of a British right of way, consequent on the Pathways Act (1867)
It’s what makes PB spesh. You’ll learn
There was a "pervasive fraud environment" at one of the UK's largest trade unions Unite, an auditors' report obtained by the BBC has concluded.
In a highly critical 35-page document, auditors BDO said in the 2021 financial year "dominant personalities and a weak control environment facilitated opportunities to commit fraud" at the union.
The BDO report says there were "unusual relationships" between former senior staff and Unite's customers and suppliers, as well as a culture that "did not challenge" financial transactions and "failed to ensure" appropriate financial reporting.
This relates, in part, to the union spending £112m on building a hotel and conference centre in Birmingham.
The property has since been valued at a fraction of that sum and the auditors said today that Unite had taken a financial hit of £53.8m on the project.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1w3ye4p8l3o
The actually somewhat surprising details are things like the executive council not being required to provide details of business relationships, so that it is impossible to determine whether conflicts of interests have occured - surely anyone in a body seeing a detail like that knows the only purpose is to facilitate fraud and enable such a conflict to escape notice? I would struggle to believe anyone setting up such rules who claimed not to realise it would be abused.
Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary
The electorate needs to take responsibility for its choices.
A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules
Cover story:
As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2025/06/britains-new-build-nightmare-housing-crisis
Plenty of truth in that, though I always get a bit maudlin when I think of how the Chinese have ruined Hong Kong since we left.
At the moment, the projected results look like a right bourach, with it very difficult to see who could form a government. A reduced and tired SNP likely to be largest party but miles away from a majority, and facing a pro-Union, but very divided, parliament.
Yes. Several times. Hillary's.
They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.
Can't fault them based on my experience.
And its a pathetically tiny amount that is a small fraction of what is needed.
Considering London's population has risen by 1.3 million in that time, there are 32 boroughs of London and there are an average of 2 people living in a home, then well over 20,000 homes should have been built in that time just to stand still, not a pathetically small 5,600.
"What lurks outside Britain’s new builds is as troubling as the problems within. On modern estates, a sense of place and belonging can be an afterthought. I saw this at Millers Field, a tarmac tendril near the town of Sprowston in Norfolk, completed in 2019. Behind rings of high fences were grids and grids of boxy redbricks, with wholemeal roof tiles and narrow-eyed windows reflecting their identical neighbours – an aesthetic now almost invisibly familiar in the limbo between satellite towns and arable expanses across the UK. Beneath the drone of surrounding roundabouts, there was little activity beyond the modern-day agora of a Tesco Extra car park.
In an hour of wandering around, I discovered just two deserted playgrounds and a primary school. A resident told me of her longing for “just a little shop to pop out to”. I finally found the start of a cycle and footpath, but after following it for a few metres, it led without warning to the edge of an A-road. Car parks and bin sheds dominated the quiet closes within the estate where you might expect benches, flowerbeds and trees. Along what I assumed were walkways leading to the front doors, signs euphemistically warned cars to “slow down: shared surface”. In other words, a road."
“This is just one of many thousands of similar suburban, edge-of-city, Nowhereville-type places dominated by car-parking, without facilities and amenities properly integrated, not walkable,” said the architect Matthew Carmona, a professor at UCL’s Bartlett School of Planning...."
A world designed for @BartholomewRoberts
You wanting to outsource the electorates responsibilities to a third party to shortcut the electorates choices is the problem.
It doesn't work.
It has never worked.
I am genuinely clueless on this
I wouldn't touch a new build from one of the big boys with the proverbial.
Self build - yes. Small family builder been around generations - yes. Anyone listed on the stock market - forget it.
The way to ensure liberty is to have an electorate that values it.
False safety blankets like you want just mean the electorate takes it for granted and goes against it, and liberties die then, because false protections are no protection at all.
Putin's Russia was in the ECHR. The ECHR did nothing to reign in Putin.
If you do well, you get reelected.
That seems to be the very definition of democracy.
I doubt that will happen in the real world mind.
We recently had roman blinds with auto electric roll up and down for a very big bay window and it was more like a grand.
They are certainly not cheap and certainly not cheap compared to getting a small set of step ladders and a drill and playing "I am DIY blinds".
But that's for people who have to buy their own furniture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Because that is the history of elections in Singapore. It is not a democracy as we know it. It is a single party autocracy, ruling a lot of state directed capitalism, with - crucially - English Common Law to temper things
But definitely one of the two.
I own one of those new builds. Here in the North West, not Camden.
It is vastly better quality than the terrible, damp accommodation we were renting before we bought this.
My wife and I both agree our quality of life is much better in our own home.
We should break the oligopoly of developers by liberating planning, but not oppose developments. Any developments are better than none.
(I'm currently investigating dishwashers using it. We made a full set of bespoke curtains for our flat using their advice too - Leon eat your heart out.)
Given that you are a mod, then I presume it is - and yes, of course I have. And ChatGPT has given me great advice, on all aspects of my domestic makeover. ChatGPT will even do mock-ups of your home interiors in your chosen new colours - you feed it a photo of your living room and say "what will this look like in Farrow and Ball's Byzantine Blue?" and it will do it for you, transform the room on screen. Incredible
HOWEVER I am aware these machines can hallucinate, so I wanted to know if ChatGPT's advice on blinds matches real world experience, on here
Avoiding a developer is great if you don't need one. If you do, then they're far better than nothing.
I mean, I can cope with the endless frothing about random islands in the Indian Ocean. I can cope with the endless hyperbole around a boring but functional government being the Worst Government Ever(TM). I can even cope with the genocide apologists.
But, the board's edgelord-in-chief getting you all discussing the best way to replace the blinds in your flat?! That's beyond the pale I'm afraid.
a) Who gets to decide what these fundamentals are?
b) By what right do they decide
c) How do I vote them out if we don't think those fundamentals are right
I am sure he would be the first to complain if they decided the fundamentals were
1) All things should be privatised including utilities and transport no exceptions
2) No one should have tax taken from them to support the unemployed because its not fair to take peoples money to support them
3) All socialists should be sent to reeducation camps for the criminally stupid
He merely imagines these fundamentals would be all things he supports which is why he thinks they are a good idea
The way to prevent it from happening is to have an electorate that will stand against that, not a 'guard rail' that stands against it.
Because that 'guard rail' can very easily be abused in the wrong hands to have a minority be oppressing a majority.
Trust the people so long as they vote Conservative/ Reform.
This will be mandatory under the Malmesbury Human Rights Act.
Where would you rather live?
PRC, Taiwan or Singapore.
No contest for me.
OTOH, the other company serving the Southend city area is c2c, which has contactless all the way out to Shoeburyness.
What we're really talking about is entrenched rules with longstanding consensus.
Constitutions are, obviously, the ultimate example. And they too can be changed - but the threshold for change is set higher than just passing a law.
You can argues about the implementation, but pretending that stable societies don't require stable rules is pretty delusional.
The blinds leading the blind.
https://x.com/Dawn_French/status/1930608701737488779