So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
So basically about a sixth of the population are racist Fukkers?
sounds about right if you've ever canvassed with a non white candidate
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
Yes. I wouldn't really. But Trumpism would test that. Me v somebody who's into Donald Trump isn't normal political disagreement, it's more than that. I judge support for Trump to be indicative of stupidity or bad character. It's a special case. Normally I'm quite chilled on this political stuff. Some of the nicest people in my life (now and in the past) have been Tories or even Liberal Democrats. But Trumpites, no. Can't stretch to that.
I wouldn't rule out being friends with a MAGA type as a matter of principle, but equally I can't imagine anyone I am actually friends with being that much of a twat.
I have a friend who was pro Trump back when he beat HRC but has wised up since. And that was a big relief because he is a good friend.
Good to hear. At this point if you're supporting Trump you have to be either stupid or malign. Like I say, I wouldn't drop anyone on principle over this but I just can't imagine anyone I'm actually friends with buying into this stuff. There are probably people who I'm friendly with as opposed to actual friends who might see Trump as the "lesser of two evils" because they're against the liberal left. I'm not going to stop speaking to them. But I can't imagine someone in that camp being a real friend. Trumpism isn't really a political philosophy in my opinion, it's more a statement about someone's entire personality. It suggests something fundamentally off about them - that they can tolerate the cruelty, the bullying, the lying, the ignorance, the vulgarity, the utter absence of anything decent and human and kind. I just don't see myself gelling with someone like that. And I have had friends who are conservative Republicans in the past, who were not like that at all.
That is precisely it. And anybody who says this is just 'lefties' being intolerant and holier-than-thou is way off beam. One of the most heartening things on here is how many right wing posters (most of them in fact) despise Donald Trump and the dreadful cult he's created.
Wonder what the polling would be if you said “would you support or oppose requiring landlords to pay National Insurance on rental income, knowing that the cost of this is in most instances going to be passed through to tenants in rent increases?”
Indeed.
If there is NI on rental income which the benefits system accepts is "investment" income akin to savings why not NI on dividends?
Judge Lucy Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election win of 2029.
You heard it here first!
Note too 35% thinking the Connolly sentence was too harsh may be a minority view but above the current 30% Reform voteshare
40% when you exclude don't knows.
That polling is grotesquely flawed in a way even a five year old could identify. The equivalent of 'about right' is not 'don't know'.
Luke Tryl is simply refusing to answer why they framed this polling question in the bizarre way they did. Because many are asking him
Allow me to answer for him. They framed it deliberately to prevent respondees from registering mild disquiet or disapprobation with the sentence, forcing them to go 'full England flag' on their answer, or take the easier option of 'don't know'. That makes it a propaganda tool, not a poll. MoreInCommon's willingness to use this type of polling to make a point would lead to huge questions in my mind about the validity of all of their polling. I certainly wouldn't ever bother commissioning them to do a poll.
It's hardly less nuanced than the average poll of this type. Agree, disagree one way, disagree the other way, not sure. Not exactly Goebbels.
I'm not really sure what you just tried to say, but I feel that you agree that the poll is bent, you're just telling me not to have a cow about it. That's fine - I am not letting it ruin my evening, but it is still a bent poll, and obviously so. And there is limited usefulness in a polling company that does this to intervene in debates - because why would one ever trust any of their polls?
I'm saying it's a fairly bog standard polling question and you're seeing conspiracies that aren't there. I don't know what's come over you.
A real Likert scale is a bog standard polling question. This isn't that, for the reasons I (and it would appear many others) have given. If you really think it is cock up not conspiracy, and that MoreInCommon are really too stupid to put together a polling question without thuddingly awkward biases, that's fine, but I don't think you do think that. You're simply arguing in bad faith.
Impugning the integrity of a BPC registered pollster just because you do not like their findings is a longstanding no no.
Is identifying an obvious flaw in a poll a longstanding no no? I would have thought that was informed discussion, and I was slightly disappointed it wasn't commented on above the line.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Yes, and I'd be willing to consider supporting stricter criteria in return for anyone being able to apply from home. Forcing people to adopt the Channel crossings seems to me simply wrong.
Applying from home is one thing. I don't agree that anyone is being 'forced' to adopt the Channel crossing. No press gangs are involved. They adopt the Channel crossing because it seems worth while to them.
Forced my large one, they are chasing money, if they were real refugees they would be safe in Europe , but prefer to go for gold and get the jackpot of free money for life.
Why would there be more "free money" in the UK when we have a less generous welfare system than most other European countries? I think they come here because they know some English and they perceive a better chance of finding work here and in some cases because they have family and friendship networks here. I know some refugees personally (via legal routes) and their goal is to get on through work. They are among the least scrounger like people I've ever met.
I have a numbers of Syrian, Iraqi, Sudanese, Zimbabwean and Burmese friends, who are refugees in all but name, having arrived on other forms of visa, mostly to work in health care. They all have a formidable work ethics, and very grateful that we gave them the opportunity to live free.
I think most in the country welcome them. But many suspect that the ones in Calais and crossing small boats are NOT of the same calibre.
And this is the fundamental issue. Most of us know at least one refugee. But the perception of those in the small boats is different from these people, whether rightly or wrongly.
Clearly they skew young and male because of the dangers involved in the crossing. They mostly come from a few war torn or dangerous countries so from that POV they fit the bill to be a genuine refugee. I would guess given the resources required to get here they are probably not the poorest people from their countries. I'd guess as well that someone fleeing eg the Taliban probably doesn't share the Taliban's political philosophy. Beyond that I have no idea, and nor I would imagine do any of the people protesting their presence here.
The Queen was a Remainer: her secret views on Brexit revealed
In his new book, Power and the Palace, the former Times royal correspondent Valentine Low uncovers the secretive relationship between the monarchy and government. Speaking to Palace aides, politicians and civil servants, he reveals the private side of Queen Elizabeth II
I agree that the polling question is a little strange.
The Epping Hotel Appeal seems to be a sounds judgement, to allow them to stay there whilst the issue is properly considered. The impact on other hotels, and the possibility of provoking demonstrations, seem to me to be good reasons to avoid a Gadarene rush to clear them out NOW or VERY QUICKLY.
I think that that and the already small scale of demonstrations at the last attempt will lead to the balloon deflating rather than going up, unless there is a significant event. My sense is that Farage is already moving his Bunco Booth on to whatever is the next thing he will try and use to draw attention - perhaps media treatment of Reform. An autumn heatwave would stir things up.
I think there's some hazard here for the Cons; I'm not sure how Kemi will get on if she keeps digging in the same hole.
Will the Govt try and take the agenda, or will they put their head in a bucket and whistle Dixie, in the hope that it will go away if their policies continue to chip away?
The Queen was a Remainer: her secret views on Brexit revealed
In his new book, Power and the Palace, the former Times royal correspondent Valentine Low uncovers the secretive relationship between the monarchy and government. Speaking to Palace aides, politicians and civil servants, he reveals the private side of Queen Elizabeth II
I don't find that surprising. GOP voters (if they still are despite Trump) are colluding with something rather horrible. If I were a Dem over there (easy to imagine) and under 30 (a bigger stretch) I'd probably be answering yes to that.
I still think it's wrong - family have a right to their opinions, and they're still family. I'd be surprised if a family member cut me off for being left-wing, and I wouldn't be bothered if they were Reform voters - actual neo-Nazis would be difficult, but unlikely.
For that matter, we all chat more or less amicably here without being in the same family. It's not that hard!
Yes. I wouldn't really. But Trumpism would test that. Me v somebody who's into Donald Trump isn't normal political disagreement, it's more than that. I judge support for Trump to be indicative of stupidity or bad character. It's a special case. Normally I'm quite chilled on this political stuff. Some of the nicest people in my life (now and in the past) have been Tories or even Liberal Democrats. But Trumpites, no. Can't stretch to that.
I wouldn't rule out being friends with a MAGA type as a matter of principle, but equally I can't imagine anyone I am actually friends with being that much of a twat.
I have a friend who was pro Trump back when he beat HRC but has wised up since. And that was a big relief because he is a good friend.
Yes, you and Leon go way back.
Now he just need to see the light on Brexit.
Glimmers of that, I think. If you look through the James Webb telescope.
I agree that the polling question is a little strange.
The Epping Hotel Appeal seems to be a sounds judgement, to allow them to stay there whilst the issue is properly considered. The impact on other hotels, and the possibility of provoking demonstrations, seem to me to be good reasons to avoid a Gadarene rush to clear them out NOW or VERY QUICKLY.
I think that that and the already small scale of demonstrations at the last attempt will lead to the balloon deflating rather than going up, unless there is a significant event. My sense is that Farage is already moving his Bunco Booth on to whatever is the next thing he will try and use to draw attention - perhaps media treatment of Reform. An autumn heatwave would stir things up.
I think there's some hazard here for the Cons; I'm not sure how Kemi will get on if she keeps digging in the same hole.
Will the Govt try and take the agenda, or will they put their head in a bucket and whistle Dixie, in the hope that it will go away if their policies continue to chip away?
A massive demo already being planned in Epping for Sunday by Adam Brooks etc. More of that to come until the October court case on change of use
Judge Lucy Connolly, the first appointment of PM Farage to his new 'Peoples Supreme Court' after his general election win of 2029.
You heard it here first!
Note too 35% thinking the Connolly sentence was too harsh may be a minority view but above the current 30% Reform voteshare
40% when you exclude don't knows.
That polling is grotesquely flawed in a way even a five year old could identify. The equivalent of 'about right' is not 'don't know'.
Luke Tryl is simply refusing to answer why they framed this polling question in the bizarre way they did. Because many are asking him
Allow me to answer for him. They framed it deliberately to prevent respondees from registering mild disquiet or disapprobation with the sentence, forcing them to go 'full England flag' on their answer, or take the easier option of 'don't know'. That makes it a propaganda tool, not a poll. MoreInCommon's willingness to use this type of polling to make a point would lead to huge questions in my mind about the validity of all of their polling. I certainly wouldn't ever bother commissioning them to do a poll.
It's hardly less nuanced than the average poll of this type. Agree, disagree one way, disagree the other way, not sure. Not exactly Goebbels.
I'm not really sure what you just tried to say, but I feel that you agree that the poll is bent, you're just telling me not to have a cow about it. That's fine - I am not letting it ruin my evening, but it is still a bent poll, and obviously so. And there is limited usefulness in a polling company that does this to intervene in debates - because why would one ever trust any of their polls?
I'm saying it's a fairly bog standard polling question and you're seeing conspiracies that aren't there. I don't know what's come over you.
A real Likert scale is a bog standard polling question. This isn't that, for the reasons I (and it would appear many others) have given. If you really think it is cock up not conspiracy, and that MoreInCommon are really too stupid to put together a polling question without thuddingly awkward biases, that's fine, but I don't think you do think that. You're simply arguing in bad faith.
I'm not. I genuinely can't see much calculated bias in a fourfold of agree, disagree one way, disagree the other way, not sure.
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Interesting, across the developed world rightwingers fertility rates are still at 2.0 ie roughly replacement level, leftwingers fertility rate has collapsed to 1.6.
In the US rightwingers fertility even higher at 2.8 and leftwingers at just 1.8
I agree that the polling question is a little strange.
The Epping Hotel Appeal seems to be a sounds judgement, to allow them to stay there whilst the issue is properly considered. The impact on other hotels, and the possibility of provoking demonstrations, seem to me to be good reasons to avoid a Gadarene rush to clear them out NOW or VERY QUICKLY.
I think that that and the already small scale of demonstrations at the last attempt will lead to the balloon deflating rather than going up, unless there is a significant event. My sense is that Farage is already moving his Bunco Booth on to whatever is the next thing he will try and use to draw attention - perhaps media treatment of Reform. An autumn heatwave would stir things up.
I think there's some hazard here for the Cons; I'm not sure how Kemi will get on if she keeps digging in the same hole.
Will the Govt try and take the agenda, or will they put their head in a bucket and whistle Dixie, in the hope that it will go away if their policies continue to chip away?
A massive demo already being planned in Epping for Sunday by Adam Brooks etc. More of that to come until the October court case on change of use
A few police officers will be badly injured, someone will try to set fire to the hotel then get taken as a "political prisoner", the polling will show huge majorities against the violence, and the Ls will be back on here explaining why not calling them "freedom fighters" in the question is part of a woke conspiracy by a BPC registered pollster.
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Interesting, across the developed world rightwingers fertility rates are still at 2.0 ie roughly replacement level, leftwingers fertility rate has collapsed to 1.6.
In the US rightwingers fertility even higher at 2.8 and leftwingers at just 1.8
Left-wingers don't want to repress women and force them to be baby-making machines.
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Unless the children rebel...
Which they do.
No, they don’t, not generally
“Classic U.S. studies (eg Jennings & Niemi, 1968/72; repeated longitudinally) have found that roughly 60–70% of children end up with the same party identification as their parents by adulthood. But “same” often means broad partisan identity (Democrat/Republican, Labour/Conservative) rather than detailed policies”
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Interesting, across the developed world rightwingers fertility rates are still at 2.0 ie roughly replacement level, leftwingers fertility rate has collapsed to 1.6.
In the US rightwingers fertility even higher at 2.8 and leftwingers at just 1.8
Isn't it just a correlation with wealth/income? Makes sense to me, women from richer countries (or regions) have more options open to them.
I agree that the polling question is a little strange.
The Epping Hotel Appeal seems to be a sounds judgement, to allow them to stay there whilst the issue is properly considered. The impact on other hotels, and the possibility of provoking demonstrations, seem to me to be good reasons to avoid a Gadarene rush to clear them out NOW or VERY QUICKLY.
I think that that and the already small scale of demonstrations at the last attempt will lead to the balloon deflating rather than going up, unless there is a significant event. My sense is that Farage is already moving his Bunco Booth on to whatever is the next thing he will try and use to draw attention - perhaps media treatment of Reform. An autumn heatwave would stir things up.
I think there's some hazard here for the Cons; I'm not sure how Kemi will get on if she keeps digging in the same hole.
Will the Govt try and take the agenda, or will they put their head in a bucket and whistle Dixie, in the hope that it will go away if their policies continue to chip away?
A massive demo already being planned in Epping for Sunday by Adam Brooks etc. More of that to come until the October court case on change of use
I think September 13 has potential to be a more significant litmus test.
In Epping I'd perhaps expect a 'dispersal order' to put in place again.
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Interesting, across the developed world rightwingers fertility rates are still at 2.0 ie roughly replacement level, leftwingers fertility rate has collapsed to 1.6.
In the US rightwingers fertility even higher at 2.8 and leftwingers at just 1.8
Isn't it just a correlation with wealth/income? Makes sense to me, women from richer countries (or regions) have more options open to them.
More likely a correlation with religion, evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics tend to have more children than atheists and agnostics for example.
Muslims also have a high birthrate so if the left wants to keep growing its vote ironically it may need even more Muslim migrants
Seeing as both @tse and @rcs1000 are on here, can we get clarity on whether PB profiles must be public or not?
Because we were told that everyone had to be public, but loads of PBers are still private. I’m not going to snitch on them, but some consistency - or elucidation- would be useful
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Interesting, across the developed world rightwingers fertility rates are still at 2.0 ie roughly replacement level, leftwingers fertility rate has collapsed to 1.6.
In the US rightwingers fertility even higher at 2.8 and leftwingers at just 1.8
Left-wingers don't want to repress women and force them to be baby-making machines.
Some right-wingers do.
Do you mean by rape? Other than by force in a sort of Josef Fritzel set up, women do have agency.
Of course, you may mean that you think women wearing the burqa are repressed even if they say they want to wear it.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her case to a Jury. It does seem to me that in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
Is "Kingdom of Heaven" (the Director’s Cut) a good film? There's a tickle in the back of my head that it's underrated. Has anybody seen it?
Never seen it, but my only knowledge of it is that Mark Kermode referenced it in his takedown of Pirates 3. Something like "Orlando Bloom killed Kingdom of Heaven stone dead."
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Unless the children rebel...
Which they do.
No, they don’t, not generally
“Classic U.S. studies (eg Jennings & Niemi, 1968/72; repeated longitudinally) have found that roughly 60–70% of children end up with the same party identification as their parents by adulthood. But “same” often means broad partisan identity (Democrat/Republican, Labour/Conservative) rather than detailed policies”
60 to 70%, in a world where there's two big political blocks each on 50%, isn't that much of a pickup on random chance.
Wonder what the polling would be if you said “would you support or oppose requiring landlords to pay National Insurance on rental income, knowing that the cost of this is in most instances going to be passed through to tenants in rent increases?”
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Interesting, across the developed world rightwingers fertility rates are still at 2.0 ie roughly replacement level, leftwingers fertility rate has collapsed to 1.6.
In the US rightwingers fertility even higher at 2.8 and leftwingers at just 1.8
Left-wingers don't want to repress women and force them to be baby-making machines.
Some right-wingers do.
Do you mean by rape? Other than by force in a sort of Josef Fritzel set up, women do have agency.
Of course, you may mean that you think women wearing the burqa are repressed even if they say they want to wear it.
There is, sadly, a strain (or stain) of Right Wing thought, particularly in the US, that women should be forced back to the kitchen sink and the bedroom. THey are not yet at the point of forcing the issue legally but certainly some sections of US society are going down that route through societal pressure.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
No idea. I hadn't closely followed either case but just remembered the comments on here about two tier policing when Jones was found not guilty. A lot of people were rightly making the case that he was found not guilty by a jury and that should be sufficient but no one seemed to want to point out that Connolly never got her day in front of a jury. I didn't even realise she had pled guilty until last week.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
Did she have someone advising her when she made that decision?
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Interesting, across the developed world rightwingers fertility rates are still at 2.0 ie roughly replacement level, leftwingers fertility rate has collapsed to 1.6.
In the US rightwingers fertility even higher at 2.8 and leftwingers at just 1.8
Left-wingers don't want to repress women and force them to be baby-making machines.
Some right-wingers do.
Do you mean by rape? Other than by force in a sort of Josef Fritzel set up, women do have agency.
Of course, you may mean that you think women wearing the burqa are repressed even if they say they want to wear it.
There is, sadly, a strain (or stain) of Right Wing thought, particularly in the US, that women should be forced back to the kitchen sink and the bedroom. THey are not yet at the point of forcing the issue legally but certainly some sections of US society are going down that route through societal pressure.
How much of that is aligned with Christianity?
It's an interesting issue. I think we all would agree that child care costs are ridiculous. We've talked a lot about the French model of sharing tax allowances to enable a parent to stay at home. But, I suspect if a politician advocated that here, they'd be accused of wanting to go back to the old days of women raising the children. Obviously, it doesn't have to be like that and I think our own Josias Jessop is an example of the reverse set up (and I suspect he's living the good life!).
I just think we struggle with this topic because we think anything that might look like repression of women is automatically dismissed. The gender pay gap nonsense of a few years ago was utterly pernicious in my opinion.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
Did she have someone advising her when she made that decision?
She was remanded 10th August, and pled guilty on 7th September, so it doesn't look like she was rushed into it.
Jones was arrested on the 8th August, was also remanded, and pled not guilty on the 6th September. It looks like he was remanded for another month or so, as it was confirmed he was granted bail on the 14th October.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
Did she have someone advising her when she made that decision?
She was remanded 10th August, and pled guilty on 7th September, so it doesn't look like she was rushed into it.
Jones was arrested on the 8th August, was also remanded, and pled not guilty on the 6th September. It looks like he was remanded for another month or so, as it was confirmed he was granted bail on the 14th October.
This is a good pointer from last week (replete with screenshots).
In her Daily Telegraph interview today (screenshots 1, 2), Lucy Connolly claims that the 31 month sentence she received was “a huge shock”. But the Court of Appeal (screenshots 3, 4) disbelieved her evidence that she did not understand the consequences of deciding to plead guilty
I only know of two Lucy’s. My first girlfriend Lucy and page 3 Stunna Lucious Lucy Gresty. Best not to google her
Lucy Lawless. Xena and Battlestar.
Lucy Jordan, quite a good ballad about her I believe. Marianne Faithfull version of course.
A nocturnal upon St Lucy's Day - one of the bleakest poems in the language. And a reminder that her Day used to fall on the solstice before the calendar reform. I usually mention this on 13 December, but everything's early this year.
Seeing as both @tse and @rcs1000 are on here, can we get clarity on whether PB profiles must be public or not?
Because we were told that everyone had to be public, but loads of PBers are still private. I’m not going to snitch on them, but some consistency - or elucidation- would be useful
Happy to follow rules, but what are the rules?
All profiles need to be public, I need to go into the Vanilla settings to disable the option to have private profiles if I can find it tonight.
Is "Kingdom of Heaven" (the Director’s Cut) a good film? There's a tickle in the back of my head that it's underrated. Has anybody seen it?
It's one of this films you'll watch enjoy but you'll never watch it again.
If you ever want to really feel there's no hope - give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Days_(2001_film) a try. I had to persuade my partner (of the time...) not to walk out part way through. Even though I had the urge to myself.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
Did she have someone advising her when she made that decision?
PB lawyers will know better than me, but I would *assume* that she will have spoken to a Legal Aid solicitor.
The police are sneaky: they'll tell you that the quickest way out of the mess you're in is to plead guilty. And I suspect she believed them.
Damn, just seen that Emma Raducanu has been knocked out of the US Open.
Why the annoyance? Surely she's not very good, her fame is due to a fluke USO and being quite hot
Surely you can't fluke winning a grand slam tournament.
She had a brilliant run and never played anyone from the highest level in 2021 when she won. She carried on from three wins in qualifying and rode the momentum. But it was a lucky win.
Looking back it reminds me of John Barnes. Barnes had a great game against Brazil, scored a worldly and since then everyone judged him by that. He was a very good player, but that game was his best day, when everything worked. It’s why career averages in cricket don’t lie. Yes Crawley can blast an amazing 260 on a day when it all works, but he still averages around 30 in tests. Duckett keeps getting out in the 90’s and rarely goes big but his average is over 40. He is the better player.
I really want Raducanu to win another slam and prove me wrong, but I don’t think she will.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Well, she should be in quite a lot of trouble. However, I suspect she'll manage to ride it out.
I only know of two Lucy’s. My first girlfriend Lucy and page 3 Stunna Lucious Lucy Gresty. Best not to google her
Lucy Lawless. Xena and Battlestar.
Lucy Jordan, quite a good ballad about her I believe. Marianne Faithfull version of course.
A nocturnal upon St Lucy's Day - one of the bleakest poems in the language. And a reminder that her Day used to fall on the solstice before the calendar reform. I usually mention this on 13 December, but everything's early this year.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
Somewhat related - I've been quite surprised how good the new 'Alien: Earth' TV series is. I had very, very low expectations. But it's actually good. Not quite as mad as 'Raised By Wolves' sadly, but good.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
I have been told be a couple of lawyers and a police officer (off duty) that when facing serious stuff, don’t use the family solicitor. Find a lawyer who represents really, really nasty criminals.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
Did she have someone advising her when she made that decision?
PB lawyers will know better than me, but I would *assume* that she will have spoken to a Legal Aid solicitor.
The police are sneaky: they'll tell you that the quickest way out of the mess you're in is to plead guilty. And I suspect she believed them.
The screenshots that @TheScreamingEagles shared are quite damning for Ms Connelly, in that she acknowleged that by pleading guilty to this offence would result in a minimum sentence - according to the guidelines - of three years. Of course, she will likely have been very tired when she signed the statement and under a lot of stress, so I'd cut her some slack. But it's hard not to conclude that she knew the likely consequences of pleading guilty when she did.
Is "Kingdom of Heaven" (the Director’s Cut) a good film? There's a tickle in the back of my head that it's underrated. Has anybody seen it?
It's one of this films you'll watch enjoy but you'll never watch it again.
If you ever want to really feel there's no hope - give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Days_(2001_film) a try. I had to persuade my partner (of the time...) not to walk out part way through. Even though I had the urge to myself.
The only film I've ever walked out of (because I thought the film was shite) was Mother! and I absolutely adore Darren Aronofsky films all the way back to Pi.
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Interesting, across the developed world rightwingers fertility rates are still at 2.0 ie roughly replacement level, leftwingers fertility rate has collapsed to 1.6.
In the US rightwingers fertility even higher at 2.8 and leftwingers at just 1.8
The fertility rate for ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews in Israel is 6.5. And Israel has PR.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
I have been told be a couple of lawyers and a police officer (off duty) that when facing serious stuff, don’t use the family solicitor. Find a lawyer who represents really, really nasty criminals.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
Did she have someone advising her when she made that decision?
PB lawyers will know better than me, but I would *assume* that she will have spoken to a Legal Aid solicitor.
The police are sneaky: they'll tell you that the quickest way out of the mess you're in is to plead guilty. And I suspect she believed them.
She had a month to think about it. The tweet given earlier shows she knew what would happen. She's selling a sob story now, but we know from communications after her message that she's happy to spin a tale. Her husband's a Tory councillor, so someone who's going to be reasonably well informed.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
Did she have someone advising her when she made that decision?
PB lawyers will know better than me, but I would *assume* that she will have spoken to a Legal Aid solicitor.
The police are sneaky: they'll tell you that the quickest way out of the mess you're in is to plead guilty. And I suspect she believed them.
She had a month to think about it. The tweet given earlier shows she knew what would happen. She's selling a sob story now, but we know from communications after her message that she's happy to spin a tale. Her husband's a Tory councillor, so someone who's going to be reasonably well informed.
Please don't sneak jokes in like that when I'm trying to sip my drink. Ta.
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Interesting, across the developed world rightwingers fertility rates are still at 2.0 ie roughly replacement level, leftwingers fertility rate has collapsed to 1.6.
In the US rightwingers fertility even higher at 2.8 and leftwingers at just 1.8
The fertility rate for ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews in Israel is 6.5. And Israel has PR.
And ultra Orthodox Jews increasingly have Netanyahu's government bowing to their will as a result
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
Did she have someone advising her when she made that decision?
PB lawyers will know better than me, but I would *assume* that she will have spoken to a Legal Aid solicitor.
The police are sneaky: they'll tell you that the quickest way out of the mess you're in is to plead guilty. And I suspect she believed them.
She had a month to think about it. The tweet given earlier shows she knew what would happen. She's selling a sob story now, but we know from communications after her message that she's happy to spin a tale. Her husband's a Tory councillor, so someone who's going to be reasonably well informed.
Lest we forget, it was revealed just before she was arrested she sent a WhatsApp message saying if she was arrested she would play the mental health card.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
It sounds iffy, but an article in The Telegraph today says...
"Sources close to Ms Rayner said she had divorced her husband and “ceased to own a stake” in the family home in Ashton-under-Lyne some time before buying the Hove apartment. But she continued to insist that the Ashton house remained her primary residence because her children still lived there."
If that's the case, and it's simply her ex getting the old family home, and her having to buy a new one, then that seems like a total non-story.
Damn, just seen that Emma Raducanu has been knocked out of the US Open.
Why the annoyance? Surely she's not very good, her fame is due to a fluke USO and being quite hot
Her game seems to have improved a lot in recent matches so this is bad news.
The way to think about tennis rankings is to turn it into football. The top three or four in the world are the Man Cities, Liverpools, Man Utd’s, Arsenals of the game. Then down to say 15 to 20 are the rest of the Premier League. And after that the rest. The drop off is huge. Lower ranked players can look very good amonsgt other lower ranked players, and can usually string a good set against a top 10 player. But in the end they lose. It’s brutal. Raducanu is where she is because that’s where she should be.
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
Did she have someone advising her when she made that decision?
PB lawyers will know better than me, but I would *assume* that she will have spoken to a Legal Aid solicitor.
The police are sneaky: they'll tell you that the quickest way out of the mess you're in is to plead guilty. And I suspect she believed them.
The screenshots that @TheScreamingEagles shared are quite damning for Ms Connelly, in that she acknowleged that by pleading guilty to this offence would result in a minimum sentence - according to the guidelines - of three years. Of course, she will likely have been very tired when she signed the statement and under a lot of stress, so I'd cut her some slack. But it's hard not to conclude that she knew the likely consequences of pleading guilty when she did.
Yes and had she pled not guilty and the jury convicted her she would have got an even longer jail sentence
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
It sounds iffy, but an article in The Telegraph today says...
"Sources close to Ms Rayner said she had divorced her husband and “ceased to own a stake” in the family home in Ashton-under-Lyne some time before buying the Hove apartment. But she continued to insist that the Ashton house remained her primary residence because her children still lived there."
If that's the case, and it's simply her ex getting the old family home, and her having to buy a new one, then that seems like a total non-story.
Of course. Although it’s also surprisingly tax efficient. Just a coincidence, I assume.
Is "Kingdom of Heaven" (the Director’s Cut) a good film? There's a tickle in the back of my head that it's underrated. Has anybody seen it?
It's one of this films you'll watch enjoy but you'll never watch it again.
If you ever want to really feel there's no hope - give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Days_(2001_film) a try. I had to persuade my partner (of the time...) not to walk out part way through. Even though I had the urge to myself.
The only film I've ever walked out of (because I thought the film was shite) was Mother! and I absolutely adore Darren Aronofsky films all the way back to Pi.
I came out of 'Mother!' thinking is was a parable about artists allowing their fame to destroy their muses when apparently it was about the environment.
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Interesting, across the developed world rightwingers fertility rates are still at 2.0 ie roughly replacement level, leftwingers fertility rate has collapsed to 1.6.
In the US rightwingers fertility even higher at 2.8 and leftwingers at just 1.8
The fertility rate for ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews in Israel is 6.5. And Israel has PR.
Which is causing a problem in Israel, with much of the population unhappy to have their taxes paying for the ultra-Orthodox and that the ultra-Orthodox don't do military service.
Is "Kingdom of Heaven" (the Director’s Cut) a good film? There's a tickle in the back of my head that it's underrated. Has anybody seen it?
It's one of this films you'll watch enjoy but you'll never watch it again.
If you ever want to really feel there's no hope - give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Days_(2001_film) a try. I had to persuade my partner (of the time...) not to walk out part way through. Even though I had the urge to myself.
The only film I've ever walked out of (because I thought the film was shite) was Mother! and I absolutely adore Darren Aronofsky films all the way back to Pi.
If you want a just shit film, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Bogey_on_a_Par_Five_Hole is the one. I was the only one in the cinema when I saw it. I should have guessed it was a bad'un when I walked in and the ticket person said, in disbelief "..... Are you.... sure?".
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
She’d have to be really stupid to do anything dodgy after the issues around her in the run up to the election. It might end legal but morally questionable regarding the current furore .
Is "Kingdom of Heaven" (the Director’s Cut) a good film? There's a tickle in the back of my head that it's underrated. Has anybody seen it?
It's one of this films you'll watch enjoy but you'll never watch it again.
If you ever want to really feel there's no hope - give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Days_(2001_film) a try. I had to persuade my partner (of the time...) not to walk out part way through. Even though I had the urge to myself.
The only film I've ever walked out of (because I thought the film was shite) was Mother! and I absolutely adore Darren Aronofsky films all the way back to Pi.
If you want a just shit film, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Bogey_on_a_Par_Five_Hole is the one. I was the only one in the cinema when I saw it. I should have guessed it was a bad'un when I walked in and the ticket person said, in disbelief "..... Are you.... sure?".
Is "Kingdom of Heaven" (the Director’s Cut) a good film? There's a tickle in the back of my head that it's underrated. Has anybody seen it?
It's one of this films you'll watch enjoy but you'll never watch it again.
If you ever want to really feel there's no hope - give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Days_(2001_film) a try. I had to persuade my partner (of the time...) not to walk out part way through. Even though I had the urge to myself.
The only film I've ever walked out of (because I thought the film was shite) was Mother! and I absolutely adore Darren Aronofsky films all the way back to Pi.
I came out of 'Mother!' thinking is was a parable about artists allowing their fame to destroy their muses when apparently it was about the environment.
'Son of Saul' was grim.
I am somebody who has watched every Sharknado film.
Exclusive: Meta has appropriated the names and likenesses of celebrities — including Taylor Swift, Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway and Selena Gomez — to create dozens of flirty social-media chatbots without their permission, Reuters has found
On the Connolly question, is not the real issue here that she was very poorly advised and should not have pled guilty in the first place. Given that Ricky Jones let his case go to court and was found Not GuIlty, would it not have been far better for Connolly had she taken her cae to a Jury. It does eem to me tha in matters of freedom of speech and interpretation of comments, Juries are generally loath to convict even in seemingly quite extreme examples.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
I don't know if it's true, but I've read that Connolly and Jones were charged with different offences. Connolly was charged with something more akin to speeding (i.e. pointless denying it), whereas Jones was able to spout a load of bollocks about why he said what he said.
Connolly admitted to an offence with a sentencing guidelines minimum of two years imprisonment.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
I have been told be a couple of lawyers and a police officer (off duty) that when facing serious stuff, don’t use the family solicitor. Find a lawyer who represents really, really nasty criminals.
Well, I'm hoping that won't be an issue.
A friend got hit-and-run’d. A policeman came across a long haired bloke lying in the gutter and gave him a kicking and arrested him for drunk and disorderly. When he came round in the hospital, they’d charged him with that. Plus being in charge of a vehicle - keys in his pocket.
It was the very early days of CCTV - the police didn’t really know about it. My friend’s lawyer (who he got via a certain acquaintance) found some on a bank that was feet away from where it happened. Showed the hit and run. And the policeman kicking a semi conscious person. And the policeman stealing his watch….
That plus blood tests proving next to no alcohol (from the samples taken at hospital admission) - he’d been working in a pub and had changed a number of barrels - the policeman had smelt the beer….
Is "Kingdom of Heaven" (the Director’s Cut) a good film? There's a tickle in the back of my head that it's underrated. Has anybody seen it?
It's one of this films you'll watch enjoy but you'll never watch it again.
If you ever want to really feel there's no hope - give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Days_(2001_film) a try. I had to persuade my partner (of the time...) not to walk out part way through. Even though I had the urge to myself.
The only film I've ever walked out of (because I thought the film was shite) was Mother! and I absolutely adore Darren Aronofsky films all the way back to Pi.
If you want a just shit film, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Bogey_on_a_Par_Five_Hole is the one. I was the only one in the cinema when I saw it. I should have guessed it was a bad'un when I walked in and the ticket person said, in disbelief "..... Are you.... sure?".
Is "Kingdom of Heaven" (the Director’s Cut) a good film? There's a tickle in the back of my head that it's underrated. Has anybody seen it?
It's one of this films you'll watch enjoy but you'll never watch it again.
If you ever want to really feel there's no hope - give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Days_(2001_film) a try. I had to persuade my partner (of the time...) not to walk out part way through. Even though I had the urge to myself.
The only film I've ever walked out of (because I thought the film was shite) was Mother! and I absolutely adore Darren Aronofsky films all the way back to Pi.
If you want a just shit film, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Bogey_on_a_Par_Five_Hole is the one. I was the only one in the cinema when I saw it. I should have guessed it was a bad'un when I walked in and the ticket person said, in disbelief "..... Are you.... sure?".
Is "Kingdom of Heaven" (the Director’s Cut) a good film? There's a tickle in the back of my head that it's underrated. Has anybody seen it?
It's one of this films you'll watch enjoy but you'll never watch it again.
If you ever want to really feel there's no hope - give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Days_(2001_film) a try. I had to persuade my partner (of the time...) not to walk out part way through. Even though I had the urge to myself.
The only film I've ever walked out of (because I thought the film was shite) was Mother! and I absolutely adore Darren Aronofsky films all the way back to Pi.
I came out of 'Mother!' thinking is was a parable about artists allowing their fame to destroy their muses when apparently it was about the environment.
'Son of Saul' was grim.
I am somebody who has watched every Sharknado film.
Derbyshire CC (RefUK) are closing half of their adult education centres under some sort of "emergency" procedure, which means no public consultation, and is "from September". At present I offer no comment; for me this is under "keep an eye out for similar":
The Reform-run Derbyshire County Council is closing five adult education centres without any public consultation following a private meeting.
Cllr Jack Bradley, Reform’s cabinet member for education, has unilaterally decided at a closed-doors meeting to shut five adult community education centres in Ashbourne, Matlock, Middleton-by-Wirksworth, Shirebrook and Long Eaton.
This comes two months after Cllr Bradley also opted to close two centres in Alfreton and Glossop, also without public or user consultation.
A county council report says the five further centres will close from September, with no consultation planned.
This would leave the authority with eight adult community education centres in Bolsover, Buxton, Chesterfield, Clay Cross, Cotmanhay, Glossop, Holmewood and Swadlincote.
Damn, just seen that Emma Raducanu has been knocked out of the US Open.
Why the annoyance? Surely she's not very good, her fame is due to a fluke USO and being quite hot
Her game seems to have improved a lot in recent matches so this is bad news.
The way to think about tennis rankings is to turn it into football. The top three or four in the world are the Man Cities, Liverpools, Man Utd’s, Arsenals of the game. Then down to say 15 to 20 are the rest of the Premier League. And after that the rest. The drop off is huge. Lower ranked players can look very good amonsgt other lower ranked players, and can usually string a good set against a top 10 player. But in the end they lose. It’s brutal. Raducanu is where she is because that’s where she should be.
But of course performance ebbs and flows. It’s hardly like there have been 4 players in the women’s game who have completely dominated tennis in the past 5 years or so. It’s been very open.
I think Raducanu has a lot of talent, but she is young and she has time on her side. She might not be a giant slayer right now, but there’s no reason why she couldn’t be up there in the top 10 in the next few years; and her game seems to be improving of late. I hope she continues on that trajectory.
Madison Keys has been on the WTA Tour for years, she was often talked about as a future star for years, she only won her first grand slam this year.
Exclusive: Meta has appropriated the names and likenesses of celebrities — including Taylor Swift, Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway and Selena Gomez — to create dozens of flirty social-media chatbots without their permission, Reuters has found
Some of these big tech companies might well be filled with smart people but they don't half do a lot of dumb shit.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
It sounds iffy, but an article in The Telegraph today says...
"Sources close to Ms Rayner said she had divorced her husband and “ceased to own a stake” in the family home in Ashton-under-Lyne some time before buying the Hove apartment. But she continued to insist that the Ashton house remained her primary residence because her children still lived there."
If that's the case, and it's simply her ex getting the old family home, and her having to buy a new one, then that seems like a total non-story.
So where does she stay when she is in her constituency doing work for the people she represents? She can’t do it from Hove or London so is she renting somewhere or staying in a hotel - and is she billing that to the taxpayer or is she just not bothered with the constituency?
Can’t imagine her constituents would be ok with her having no residential presence in her seat.
I support NI and tax being combined so that ALL earnings are subject to the same amounts of tax.
However as others have pointed out, I wonder what this polling would be if the question was
"Would you support or oppose the Government imposing an 8% tax increase on all rents".
Because this, in effect, is what would happen.
I agree on that last point, not the first as I what NI hypothecated to fund the state pension and JSA and maybe some health and social care
And what happens if the hypothecated tax is insufficient to cover expenditure?
It shouldn't be, because everybody gets a state pension equivalent to what they paid in and contributions based JSA based on what they paid in.
Most OECD nations also fund most healthcare via state provided insurance.
If you haven't paid in enough for a state pension or JSA if unemployed, income tax can still fund pension credit and universal credit for you
This is simply not true. Even at the most basic level.
The earnings level to count as contributing to your state pension is £125 a week. However you don't actually have to start paying any NI until you earn at least £242 a week.
So there are a group of low paid workers (roughly those earning between £6500 and £12500 a year) who are qualifying towards getting their full state pension (35 years of contributions) but do not actually pay any NI.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Yes, and I'd be willing to consider supporting stricter criteria in return for anyone being able to apply from home. Forcing people to adopt the Channel crossings seems to me simply wrong.
Applying from home is one thing. I don't agree that anyone is being 'forced' to adopt the Channel crossing. No press gangs are involved. They adopt the Channel crossing because it seems worth while to them.
Forced my large one, they are chasing money, if they were real refugees they would be safe in Europe , but prefer to go for gold and get the jackpot of free money for life.
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
Interesting, across the developed world rightwingers fertility rates are still at 2.0 ie roughly replacement level, leftwingers fertility rate has collapsed to 1.6.
In the US rightwingers fertility even higher at 2.8 and leftwingers at just 1.8
Left-wingers don't want to repress women and force them to be baby-making machines.
Some right-wingers do.
Do you mean by rape? Other than by force in a sort of Josef Fritzel set up, women do have agency.
Of course, you may mean that you think women wearing the burqa are repressed even if they say they want to wear it.
There is, sadly, a strain (or stain) of Right Wing thought, particularly in the US, that women should be forced back to the kitchen sink and the bedroom. THey are not yet at the point of forcing the issue legally but certainly some sections of US society are going down that route through societal pressure.
The restrictions on abortion and contraception are just two ways women some are hoping to force women into being baby-making machines. And it's the right-wing states that are doing it - at the same time as hyperventilating at their faux concern about falling birth rates.
You get people like Musk, who thinks America could be home to far more people, is concerned about low birth rates, but is also against immigration - at least for anyone who isn't rich like him. The 'solution' is obvious: and it isn't good for American women.
So almost half of RUK supporters think their party - that's the party leading the polls atm - should "associate itself" with a hardcore racist convicted of inciting violence against asylum seekers.
That's something to think about, isn't it.
And the reason labour has to stop the boats to change the narrative
Yes, here's hoping.
Half of Reform's support is driven by racism is the gloomy take but the sunnier one (which I always try to go with) is that half of it isn't.
So some (perhaps many) of the latter can be peeled off depending on developments between now and the GE.
I know we'd both like to see that, me from a Lab perspective and you from a Con one.
I am perfectly happy with legal immigration but like many others am wholly opposed to the boats
Stop the boats and you remove the toxicity
It may require us to temporarily leave the ECHR, but this is becoming far more widely supported including in the labour party
Given that the asylum process requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum from within the UK, it hard to see how there is any way in which they can enter the country legally. Providing some means by which it is possible to apply for asylum from outside the UK would surely go some way towards stopping the boats.
431,000 was the figure for net immigration into the UK in 2024 which by common agreement is too high
However we do need a sensible immigration policy, but it will not get a hearing as long as the boats keep coming and hotels are used
Yes, but my point is that the boats will keep coming unless there is some other way in which would-be asylum seekers can apply for asylum. They simply have nothing to lose. If there was an accessible, legal way of applying for asylum, this would help to reduce the boat numbers, especially if arrival by boat reduced the chance of a successful application.
If one could only apply for asylum at one of our Embassies or Consular Offices that would perhaps help.
What was the procedure for the children on the Kindertransport?
All of which would massively increase the number of applicants.
Does it matter? They will still be living somewhere else and will only be admitted to the UK if they pass
There are 20 million girls and women in Afghanistan who be pretty much guaranteed to pass. How many would try and apply? 10%? That’s still two million.
Happy to admit Afghan women
The electorate will not agree with you. And that's before you get to potentially every other woman in the Middle East.
If you think about it, if you want to smash militant Islam, then offering women the chance to escape it, is probably the best possible way.
It's hard to have a successful society, if a significant chunk of the women have left. So, those countries would need to change their policies to prevent the exodus.
At the moment it's extremely difficult for anyone other than able-bodied young men to claim asylum in the UK. If we're prepared to accept x asylum seekers per year, then it surely makes sense to select from those who most deserve asylum rather than from those who manage to make it across the channel (the aforementioned young men). That means rejecting all (or almost all) those who arrive by boat but also accepting the x most deserving cases of those who apply by the legal means that don't currently exist.
Two thirds of asylum seekers haven't come over on the boats, if I remember the numbers.
Comments
If there is NI on rental income which the benefits system accepts is "investment" income akin to savings why not NI on dividends?
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/men-accused-harassing-women-putting-32370788
More bad flag news! Reform UK council removing flags.
The Queen was a Remainer: her secret views on Brexit revealed
In his new book, Power and the Palace, the former Times royal correspondent Valentine Low uncovers the secretive relationship between the monarchy and government. Speaking to Palace aides, politicians and civil servants, he reveals the private side of Queen Elizabeth II
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/queen-remainer-power-politics-palace-vc6dlmkzt
Yes, birthrates are collapsing. But mainly among progressives
The future is right
https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1961332683813855531?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
“ WOW
In recent decades in the U.S. and across the developed world, birth rates have barely changed for right-wingers.
The more left-wing, the more fertility rates have fallen!”
I agree that the polling question is a little strange.
The Epping Hotel Appeal seems to be a sounds judgement, to allow them to stay there whilst the issue is properly considered. The impact on other hotels, and the possibility of provoking demonstrations, seem to me to be good reasons to avoid a Gadarene rush to clear them out NOW or VERY QUICKLY.
I think that that and the already small scale of demonstrations at the last attempt will lead to the balloon deflating rather than going up, unless there is a significant event. My sense is that Farage is already moving his Bunco Booth on to whatever is the next thing he will try and use to draw attention - perhaps media treatment of Reform. An autumn heatwave would stir things up.
I think there's some hazard here for the Cons; I'm not sure how Kemi will get on if she keeps digging in the same hole.
Will the Govt try and take the agenda, or will they put their head in a bucket and whistle Dixie, in the hope that it will go away if their policies continue to chip away?
That’s better than my ranking so don’t think “not very good” is entirely fair…
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_4rrDtnm2c
- https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/Online/default.asp?BOparam::WScontent::loadArticle::permalink=ridley-scott
(whistles "Tears in the Rain")In the US rightwingers fertility even higher at 2.8 and leftwingers at just 1.8
Some right-wingers do.
https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-revokes-secret-service-protection-for-former-vice-president-kamala-harris-13420601
However as others have pointed out, I wonder what this polling would be if the question was
"Would you support or oppose the Government imposing an 8% tax increase on all rents".
Because this, in effect, is what would happen.
“Classic U.S. studies (eg Jennings & Niemi, 1968/72; repeated longitudinally) have found that roughly 60–70% of children end up with the same party identification as their parents by adulthood. But “same” often means broad partisan identity (Democrat/Republican, Labour/Conservative) rather than detailed policies”
In Epping I'd perhaps expect a 'dispersal order' to put in place again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election
More likely a correlation with religion, evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics tend to have more children than atheists and agnostics for example.
Muslims also have a high birthrate so if the left wants to keep growing its vote ironically it may need even more Muslim migrants
Because we were told that everyone had to be public, but loads of PBers are still private. I’m not going to snitch on them, but some consistency - or elucidation- would be useful
Happy to follow rules, but what are the rules?
Of course, you may mean that you think women wearing the burqa are repressed even if they say they want to wear it.
I would be interested to know what advice she was given and what 'threats' were made with regard to her plea.
For the record of course I think both Connolly and Jones are bloody stupid, rather unsavoury characters but I don't think either of them should have ended up in jail.
She should never have done that, because it's entirely possible that the CPS would have chosen to prosecute on lesser charges.
She was clearly both scared and very poorly advised. And when you have a young kid at home, and are worried that you won't see them for a sustained period, and that the risk of going to trial is that you could end up in prison for 3 or 4 years... Well, you can see why she did what she did. But she should never have done so.
It's an interesting issue. I think we all would agree that child care costs are ridiculous. We've talked a lot about the French model of sharing tax allowances to enable a parent to stay at home. But, I suspect if a politician advocated that here, they'd be accused of wanting to go back to the old days of women raising the children. Obviously, it doesn't have to be like that and I think our own Josias Jessop is an example of the reverse set up (and I suspect he's living the good life!).
I just think we struggle with this topic because we think anything that might look like repression of women is automatically dismissed. The gender pay gap nonsense of a few years ago was utterly pernicious in my opinion.
Not looking forward to being knocked off my bike by a Tesla and then Musk deleting the evidence.
Jones was arrested on the 8th August, was also remanded, and pled not guilty on the 6th September. It looks like he was remanded for another month or so, as it was confirmed he was granted bail on the 14th October.
How much trouble do people think Rayner is going to be in with the ethics advisor on her house dealings? I have no clue and would be interested if anyone has a handle on this and whether it is just a storm in a teacup/opponents making something out of nothing or something that could see her in real trouble?
In her Daily Telegraph interview today (screenshots 1, 2), Lucy Connolly claims that the 31 month sentence she received was “a huge shock”. But the Court of Appeal (screenshots 3, 4) disbelieved her evidence that she did not understand the consequences of deciding to plead guilty
https://x.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1959013736800559283
The police are sneaky: they'll tell you that the quickest way out of the mess you're in is to plead guilty. And I suspect she believed them.
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1961492297385734507
Looking back it reminds me of John Barnes. Barnes had a great game against Brazil, scored a worldly and since then everyone judged him by that. He was a very good player, but that game was his best day, when everything worked. It’s why career averages in cricket don’t lie. Yes Crawley can blast an amazing 260 on a day when it all works, but he still averages around 30 in tests. Duckett keeps getting out in the 90’s and rarely goes big but his average is over 40. He is the better player.
I really want Raducanu to win another slam and prove me wrong, but I don’t think she will.
And Israel has PR.
Most OECD nations also fund most healthcare via state provided insurance.
If you haven't paid in enough for a state pension or JSA if unemployed, income tax can still fund pension credit and universal credit for you
"Sources close to Ms Rayner said she had divorced her husband and “ceased to own a stake” in the family home in Ashton-under-Lyne some time before buying the Hove apartment. But she continued to insist that the Ashton house remained her primary residence because her children still lived there."
If that's the case, and it's simply her ex getting the old family home, and her having to buy a new one, then that seems like a total non-story.
Man Utd’s, Arsenals of the game. Then down to say 15 to 20 are the rest of the Premier League. And after that the rest. The drop off is huge. Lower ranked players can look very good amonsgt other lower ranked players, and can usually string a good set against a top 10 player. But in the end they lose. It’s brutal.Raducanu is where she is because that’s where she should be.
'Son of Saul' was grim.
Boy oh boy was it bad.
That means my state pension will be roughly £100,000 per year. And that's before the triple lock!
@Reuters
Exclusive: Meta has appropriated the names and likenesses of celebrities — including Taylor Swift, Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway and Selena Gomez — to create dozens of flirty social-media chatbots without their permission, Reuters has found
It was the very early days of CCTV - the police didn’t really know about it. My friend’s lawyer (who he got via a certain acquaintance) found some on a bank that was feet away from where it happened. Showed the hit and run. And the policeman kicking a semi conscious person. And the policeman stealing his watch….
That plus blood tests proving next to no alcohol (from the samples taken at hospital admission) - he’d been working in a pub and had changed a number of barrels - the policeman had smelt the beer….
The Reform-run Derbyshire County Council is closing five adult education centres without any public consultation following a private meeting.
Cllr Jack Bradley, Reform’s cabinet member for education, has unilaterally decided at a closed-doors meeting to shut five adult community education centres in Ashbourne, Matlock, Middleton-by-Wirksworth, Shirebrook and Long Eaton.
This comes two months after Cllr Bradley also opted to close two centres in Alfreton and Glossop, also without public or user consultation.
A county council report says the five further centres will close from September, with no consultation planned.
This would leave the authority with eight adult community education centres in Bolsover, Buxton, Chesterfield, Clay Cross, Cotmanhay, Glossop, Holmewood and Swadlincote.
(@MustaphaMondeo )
The beauty of batteries
Keeping the grid stable requires overbuilding generating capacity, driving up costs. Batteries fix that.
https://www.worksinprogress.news/p/the-beauty-of-batteries
I think Raducanu has a lot of talent, but she is young and she has time on her side. She might not be a giant slayer right now, but there’s no reason why she couldn’t be up there in the top 10 in the next few years; and her game seems to be improving of late. I hope she continues on that trajectory.
Madison Keys has been on the WTA Tour for years, she was often talked about as a future star for years, she only won her first grand slam this year.
Can’t imagine her constituents would be ok with her having no residential presence in her seat.
The earnings level to count as contributing to your state pension is £125 a week.
However you don't actually have to start paying any NI until you earn at least £242 a week.
So there are a group of low paid workers (roughly those earning between £6500 and £12500 a year) who are qualifying towards getting their full state pension (35 years of contributions) but do not actually pay any NI.
You get people like Musk, who thinks America could be home to far more people, is concerned about low birth rates, but is also against immigration - at least for anyone who isn't rich like him. The 'solution' is obvious: and it isn't good for American women.