One factor that will discourage Russia from agreeing to a ceasefire is the sense that if they fail to achieve victory this time, they won't get another chance.
Perhaps Ukraine will be left broke and penniless after a ceasefire, and won't be able to afford 150 Gripen jets, but the chances are that Ukraine will be in a much stronger position for any resumption of hostilities after a ceasefire.
This implies that Russia have to be forced into a ceasefire as the only alternative to defeat.
Incidentally, somebody has pointed out that Elon talks a pile of shit, and Musk is throwing a strop.
For all those who don't know, NASA picked SpaceX to build a lunar lander. Elon took the money, then ignored the Moon entirely and concentrated on his Mars rocket (which one day may even reach Earth orbit!). NASA noticed that Elon was playing silly buggers and have reopened the contract.
SpaceX is behind, but has fulfilled a large number of milestones in the fixed price contract for the lander.
This is about (a) finding someone to blame when Artemis III slips beyond the end of Trump’s term in office (b) power play by the temporary head of NASA - MAGA loon to the max. (c) poking Musk
So they need a lander in 30 months.
- Fiddle with Blue Origin Mk1 lander. Which is small and designed for cargo only. Might or might not work - Give $20Bn to the Usual Suspects to build a lander in 30 months. Which can’t work. It would take Boeing and LockMart 30 months to decide the colours for the font for the project.
Good to know, but does anybody really think Elon will i) build something that will land, ii) build refuelling tankers, and iii) do it in time for Artemis III? The Chinese are planning to get taikonauts on the lunar surface by 2030 and probably will. Musk works to Elon time and doesn't do deadlines.
The Dynetics bid for the contract that SpaceX won had a small flaw. It had negative payload mass.
Yes, it could only carry less than nothing.
Dynetics said they could engineer a fix….
The option of using an adapted Blue Mk1 lander is the only one that is vaguely possible.
SpaceX are proceeding about as fast as they can.
To understand the scale of the problem for using other, traditional vendors and concepts, consider the following - there is doubt at whether they can stack Artemis III on the pad in *two years* following Artemis II (launch Feb next year)
Meanwhile SpaceX is asking for 25 launch permits for Boca Chica for next year. That is, they want to launch, potentially, once every two weeks.
And they are building another launch facility at the Cape.
Yes I know about Dynetics' negative mass problem. Reduce the crew to two, ditch one of the solar panels or batteries, reduce the flight duration to two days, take the cockpit walls off (they can piss/poo in their suits for two days), make the framework out of a lighter material - hell, wood if necessary - and voila! Suddenly it's light enough. Give it to a bunch of students in a provincial college with a vice and drills, see what they can do in a month. It's easier and quicker to improve a basic design than it is to build a new one from scratch. Give it to Boeing, they'll spend years producing something that'll kill you. Sierra Nevada fucked up with Dream Chaser. Lockheed Martin will produce something that is beautiful and will work, but it'll cost trillions. Blue Origin will produce something by 2040 with a feather on the side that will topple over. SpaceX will land on the wrong planet. There's nothing else left.
I’m not so sure about Blue. They *could* accelerate and get a manned Mk 1 done in 30 months. The problem is their systemic structure and if they have the management to push through it.
So the Lam policy is to deport any migrant whose ever claimed benefits including those who claimed maternity leave .
At the time of course they weren’t to know that doing this would further down the line end up putting them in the deportation category .
I find that surprising to say the least, though I haven't read her actual comments. Have you?
The Bill has been published . It’s there in black and white . Anyone who has ever had any benefits or pension can be deported . They use flowery language to hide the horror .
The bit on marriages is also interesting. AFAICS there will be a strict quota, variable at will, and repudiable at will, for each annual period. What I'm hazy about is whether it applies to someone marrying someone with a full UK passport, ie a full subject of HM.
One factor that will discourage Russia from agreeing to a ceasefire is the sense that if they fail to achieve victory this time, they won't get another chance.
Perhaps Ukraine will be left broke and penniless after a ceasefire, and won't be able to afford 150 Gripen jets, but the chances are that Ukraine will be in a much stronger position for any resumption of hostilities after a ceasefire.
This implies that Russia have to be forced into a ceasefire as the only alternative to defeat.
I think the only exit from the war will be a Korea style ceasefire in place. An endless war, but without shooting.
Might well be an informal ceasefire. Russian stops attacking, and Ukraine stops droning the refineries.
An actual end to the war without Russia winning will be fatal to Putin.
BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.
Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.
It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.
It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.
A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)
Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.
Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
No, we need a more contributory welfare state not less,
Ringfence NI payments to fund the state pension and JSA and also make over 65s pay NI too and then use the extra funds to help fund social care
I have previously opined that we should have been required to pay back our furlough payments on an interest free, or nominal interest basis. Your party loved a free bung until it didn't.
Likewise anyone supplying dodgy PPE should be personally chased down without hiding behind limited liability. Your party loved a grift, and probably still does.
Since her rather tin eared ‘thanks for the birthday wishes’ tweet while enjoying some opulence it’s all gone quiet on the odious Medpro lot.
I’d guess we won’t get our cash back and would have been better settling for the 23 million offered.
In the meantime HMRC will be targetting people selling items on eBay and Vinted and helping themselves to cash from their account.
I was shocked a couple of years ago to discover I had to pay VAT on my Chinese tat (not PPE) from AliExpress.
42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.
Idea: anyone who makes it across 5 times should be offered an automatic commission into the Royal Marines.
10+ years service and they get British Citizenship.
My idea has always been impressment into the Royal Navy.
It’s traditional values at work.
Not much scope for pulley-hauly work in the modern RN: at least the unskilled could always pull a rope when commanded, as part of the afterguard, in the old RN which nevertheless much preferred to impress trained seamen (and, strictly, couldn't impress anyone else). Unless experience with computer games counts?
BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.
Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.
It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.
It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.
A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)
Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.
Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
No, we need a more contributory welfare state not less,
Ringfence NI payments to fund the state pension and JSA and also make over 65s pay NI too and then use the extra funds to help fund social care
I have previously opined that we should have been required to pay back our furlough payments on an interest free, or nominal interest basis. Your party loved a free bung until it didn't.
Likewise anyone supplying dodgy PPE should be personally chased down without hiding behind limited liability. Your party loved a grift, and probably still does.
Since her rather tin eared ‘thanks for the birthday wishes’ tweet while enjoying some opulence it’s all gone quiet on the odious Medpro lot.
I’d guess we won’t get our cash back and would have been better settling for the 23 million offered.
In the meantime HMRC will be targetting people selling items on eBay and Vinted and helping themselves to cash from their account.
I was shocked a couple of years ago to discover I had to pay VAT on my Chinese tat (not PPE) from AliExpress.
Was it high value ?
I forget the lower limit for VAT on personal imports, but it's something like £16 value of goods and services - but this is calculated including, and this is often the overlooked killer, the cost of carriage and packing. So all too easy to go over even when trying not to. Books is free, though.
So the Lam policy is to deport any migrant whose ever claimed benefits including those who claimed maternity leave .
At the time of course they weren’t to know that doing this would further down the line end up putting them in the deportation category .
I find that surprising to say the least, though I haven't read her actual comments. Have you?
The Bill has been published . It’s there in black and white . Anyone who has ever had any benefits or pension can be deported . They use flowery language to hide the horror .
The Farewell Dear residents of Highgate, of the neighbouring villages, of North London, and of London in general, Don Ciccio – Osteria Italiana has closed today, exactly six years after its opening in October 2019. We have closed due to a lack of customers.
It wasn’t enough to be Traveller’s Choice 2023 – 2024 – 2025 on Tripadvisor.
It wasn’t enough to be told we had one of the best pizzas in London.
It wasn’t enough to hold 4.7 stars on Google, with 700 reviews, for every one of those six years.
Nor to change our menu each season, roaming through the flavours of Italy.
We are guests in this country, and as guests, we will not complain. We’ll simply say: addio. And now, with gratitude:
To our staff — Roberto, Diego, Daniele, the many waiters and chefs who came and went — thank you for your passion, and for enduring the humiliation of entire evenings with an empty dining room.
To our faithful customers — we’ll miss you. Perhaps one day we’ll meet again, in Italy.
To the community of Highgate and its neighbours —thank you for never supporting us, not even once.
To those we served during lockdown, when we were the only restaurant open, thank you for never visiting us once the pandemic ended.
To the Highgate Society — thank you for never replying to any of our proposals for collaboration.
To those who lived a few doors away yet ordered delivery from somewhere else — thank you for your commitment to distance.
In short: thank you all for supporting us so perfectly.
WE MAY BE THE FIRST ITALIAN RESTAURANT TO CLOSE... ...not for bad food, bad reviews, or bad luck — but for the sheer indifference of our neighbours.
To those who said, back in 2019, “they’ll close within three months” —congratulations ! You were only off by five years and nine months. We’re proud to have served the elderly, the children, the families, the lonely, the joyful and the broken alike. At least we did our duty.
It’s only a drop — soon it will dry. Unless, of course, it’s the beginning of a storm.
Didn't look the most inviting place - frontage could do with a lick of paint.
It's an awkward spot for a restaurant. It's round the corner from where most foot traffic is. I recall several different restaurants on that site over the years.
One factor that will discourage Russia from agreeing to a ceasefire is the sense that if they fail to achieve victory this time, they won't get another chance.
Perhaps Ukraine will be left broke and penniless after a ceasefire, and won't be able to afford 150 Gripen jets, but the chances are that Ukraine will be in a much stronger position for any resumption of hostilities after a ceasefire.
This implies that Russia have to be forced into a ceasefire as the only alternative to defeat.
I think the only exit from the war will be a Korea style ceasefire in place. An endless war, but without shooting.
Might well be an informal ceasefire. Russian stops attacking, and Ukraine stops droning the refineries.
An actual end to the war without Russia winning will be fatal to Putin.
I still think Putin can survive even a complete withdrawal from occupied Ukraine - but if he doesn't think so then it will affect his decision-making regardless.
One thing they talked about recently on the Telegraph's Ukraine the latest podcast was the suggestion that Putin is being systematically lied to by his subordinates about the progress of the war, and so he has an inflated confidence about the likelihood of achieving complete victory if he holds to the current course.
This again also suggests that only the undeniable prospect of imminent defeat could force a ceasefire - at which point, does a ceasefire make sense to Ukraine?
42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.
Idea: anyone who makes it across 5 times should be offered an automatic commission into the Royal Marines.
10+ years service and they get British Citizenship.
My idea has always been impressment into the Royal Navy.
It’s traditional values at work.
Not much scope for pulley-hauly work in the modern RN: at least the unskilled could always pull a rope when commanded, as part of the afterguard, in the old RN which nevertheless much preferred to impress trained seamen (and, strictly, couldn't impress anyone else). Unless experience with computer games counts?
Anyone who can navigate the Channel in a small boat has their small boat skills sorted.
Great for that interdiction stuff they love putting in the adverts for the RN.
As to the impressment - that’ll be handled by a special unit of Customs. Complete with tricorn hats, frock coats with large brass buttons and cudgels.
The Farewell Dear residents of Highgate, of the neighbouring villages, of North London, and of London in general, Don Ciccio – Osteria Italiana has closed today, exactly six years after its opening in October 2019. We have closed due to a lack of customers.
It wasn’t enough to be Traveller’s Choice 2023 – 2024 – 2025 on Tripadvisor.
It wasn’t enough to be told we had one of the best pizzas in London.
It wasn’t enough to hold 4.7 stars on Google, with 700 reviews, for every one of those six years.
Nor to change our menu each season, roaming through the flavours of Italy.
We are guests in this country, and as guests, we will not complain. We’ll simply say: addio. And now, with gratitude:
To our staff — Roberto, Diego, Daniele, the many waiters and chefs who came and went — thank you for your passion, and for enduring the humiliation of entire evenings with an empty dining room.
To our faithful customers — we’ll miss you. Perhaps one day we’ll meet again, in Italy.
To the community of Highgate and its neighbours —thank you for never supporting us, not even once.
To those we served during lockdown, when we were the only restaurant open, thank you for never visiting us once the pandemic ended.
To the Highgate Society — thank you for never replying to any of our proposals for collaboration.
To those who lived a few doors away yet ordered delivery from somewhere else — thank you for your commitment to distance.
In short: thank you all for supporting us so perfectly.
WE MAY BE THE FIRST ITALIAN RESTAURANT TO CLOSE... ...not for bad food, bad reviews, or bad luck — but for the sheer indifference of our neighbours.
To those who said, back in 2019, “they’ll close within three months” —congratulations ! You were only off by five years and nine months. We’re proud to have served the elderly, the children, the families, the lonely, the joyful and the broken alike. At least we did our duty.
It’s only a drop — soon it will dry. Unless, of course, it’s the beginning of a storm.
Didn't look the most inviting place - frontage could do with a lick of paint.
It's an awkward spot for a restaurant. It's round the corner from where most foot traffic is. I recall several different restaurants on that site over the years.
BBC News: "good news for the chancellor that inflation has stayed at 3.8%". Not really, it ought to be no higher than 2%.
Indeed but crucially it is below the 4.8% rise in average earnings
Pensioners though will get 4.8% next April through the idiotic and unsustainable triple lock
Though the state pension is below the minimum wage now of course, let alone average earnings.
It looks like those with significant private pensions will be taxed more by Reeves anyway
Re your second point @hyufd how do you think she will do that? I can't see a mechanism, although I might be having a blind spot.
Reduce tax free lump sum for one, move from salary sacrifice, change the ability for top earners to get higher rate reliefs.
It’s all small stuff. Won’t yield the tens of billions
The total net cost of all pension tax relief is estimated to be £48.7 billion in the 2022/23 tax year.
A very large proportion of this multi-billion-pound relief goes to higher and additional-rate taxpayers, as they contribute more to pensions and receive relief at a higher rate (40% or 45%)
Reducing the higher rate to 20% would save about £14.5 billion. pa It's not small stuff. I think she should do it.
Didn’t realise it was that much, she should give it serious thought.
Labour are screwed anyway. They may as well be bold and reformative. Look at merging NI with tax as suggested by KJH.
No, we need a more contributory welfare state not less,
Ringfence NI payments to fund the state pension and JSA and also make over 65s pay NI too and then use the extra funds to help fund social care
I have previously opined that we should have been required to pay back our furlough payments on an interest free, or nominal interest basis. Your party loved a free bung until it didn't.
Likewise anyone supplying dodgy PPE should be personally chased down without hiding behind limited liability. Your party loved a grift, and probably still does.
The Farewell Dear residents of Highgate, of the neighbouring villages, of North London, and of London in general, Don Ciccio – Osteria Italiana has closed today, exactly six years after its opening in October 2019. We have closed due to a lack of customers.
It wasn’t enough to be Traveller’s Choice 2023 – 2024 – 2025 on Tripadvisor.
It wasn’t enough to be told we had one of the best pizzas in London.
It wasn’t enough to hold 4.7 stars on Google, with 700 reviews, for every one of those six years.
Nor to change our menu each season, roaming through the flavours of Italy.
We are guests in this country, and as guests, we will not complain. We’ll simply say: addio. And now, with gratitude:
To our staff — Roberto, Diego, Daniele, the many waiters and chefs who came and went — thank you for your passion, and for enduring the humiliation of entire evenings with an empty dining room.
To our faithful customers — we’ll miss you. Perhaps one day we’ll meet again, in Italy.
To the community of Highgate and its neighbours —thank you for never supporting us, not even once.
To those we served during lockdown, when we were the only restaurant open, thank you for never visiting us once the pandemic ended.
To the Highgate Society — thank you for never replying to any of our proposals for collaboration.
To those who lived a few doors away yet ordered delivery from somewhere else — thank you for your commitment to distance.
In short: thank you all for supporting us so perfectly.
WE MAY BE THE FIRST ITALIAN RESTAURANT TO CLOSE... ...not for bad food, bad reviews, or bad luck — but for the sheer indifference of our neighbours.
To those who said, back in 2019, “they’ll close within three months” —congratulations ! You were only off by five years and nine months. We’re proud to have served the elderly, the children, the families, the lonely, the joyful and the broken alike. At least we did our duty.
It’s only a drop — soon it will dry. Unless, of course, it’s the beginning of a storm.
Didn't look the most inviting place - frontage could do with a lick of paint.
It's an awkward spot for a restaurant. It's round the corner from where most foot traffic is. I recall several different restaurants on that site over the years.
It doesn't seem to have a menu in the window.
A restaurant without a menu in the window, is clearly expecting someone to have pre-booked a table and not looking for walk-ins.
I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.
I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?
Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.
Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.
Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
Sounds like making Islam an established Episcopal religion with Imams appointed by a hierarchy ultimately controlled by the State. And with a few imams in the House of Lords.
That worked for Christianity - but only because we had the other side as well. A chunk of the radical preachers (and adherents) who wouldn’t accept secular/royal/establishment authority were squeezed into emigration, imprisoned or, in some cases, disposed of.
Didn't work for a lot of Christianity, still very much present in the UK. All the Scots Presbyterians, for instance, are unrepresented as such in the HoL. Religious Society of Friends, RCs, etc. etc. also lack any formal representation.
I would allow representatives of other denominations leaders to be in the Lords as well as some imams, rabbis and Hindu and Sikh leaders.
I would also reduce the C of E Bishops in the Lords to just the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, Winchester and London ie the most senior ones. That would better reflect 21st century UK and you could add a few humanists as well. After all the King had representatives of all denominations and faiths at his coronation and a few humanists as well.
The Vatican still won’t allow their UK Bishops to be in the Lords though as as far as they are concerned the Church of England is still officially a heretic church and having a presence in the House of Lords would undermine their bishops loyalty to the Pope and Holy See
We should do what normal countries do and not have Bishops or any other religion's leaders in the HoL.
Graffiti is a particular bug bear of mine. Tagging everything that doesn't move. Because we have as a society (and its true across Europe) just sort of shrugged at it and rarely the people are ever caught or punished, its just effectively legalised these days.
I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.
I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?
Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.
Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.
Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
Sounds like making Islam an established Episcopal religion with Imams appointed by a hierarchy ultimately controlled by the State. And with a few imams in the House of Lords.
That worked for Christianity - but only because we had the other side as well. A chunk of the radical preachers (and adherents) who wouldn’t accept secular/royal/establishment authority were squeezed into emigration, imprisoned or, in some cases, disposed of.
Didn't work for a lot of Christianity, still very much present in the UK. All the Scots Presbyterians, for instance, are unrepresented as such in the HoL. Religious Society of Friends, RCs, etc. etc. also lack any formal representation.
I would allow representatives of other denominations leaders to be in the Lords as well as some imams, rabbis and Hindu and Sikh leaders.
I would also reduce the C of E Bishops in the Lords to just the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, Winchester and London ie the most senior ones. That would better reflect 21st century UK and you could add a few humanists as well. After all the King had representatives of all denominations and faiths at his coronation and a few humanists as well.
The Vatican still won’t allow their UK Bishops to be in the Lords though as as far as they are concerned the Church of England is still officially a heretic church and having a presence in the House of Lords would undermine their bishops loyalty to the Pope and Holy See
We should do what normal countries do and not have Bishops or any other religion's leaders in the HoL.
We - and I say this with much respect - are not a normal country.
The English law on contracts and the law on consumer protection are both influenced by snails
I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.
I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?
Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.
Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.
Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
Sounds like making Islam an established Episcopal religion with Imams appointed by a hierarchy ultimately controlled by the State. And with a few imams in the House of Lords.
That worked for Christianity - but only because we had the other side as well. A chunk of the radical preachers (and adherents) who wouldn’t accept secular/royal/establishment authority were squeezed into emigration, imprisoned or, in some cases, disposed of.
Didn't work for a lot of Christianity, still very much present in the UK. All the Scots Presbyterians, for instance, are unrepresented as such in the HoL. Religious Society of Friends, RCs, etc. etc. also lack any formal representation.
I would allow representatives of other denominations leaders to be in the Lords as well as some imams, rabbis and Hindu and Sikh leaders.
I would also reduce the C of E Bishops in the Lords to just the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, Winchester and London ie the most senior ones. That would better reflect 21st century UK and you could add a few humanists as well. After all the King had representatives of all denominations and faiths at his coronation and a few humanists as well.
The Vatican still won’t allow their UK Bishops to be in the Lords though as as far as they are concerned the Church of England is still officially a heretic church and having a presence in the House of Lords would undermine their bishops loyalty to the Pope and Holy See
We should do what normal countries do and not have Bishops or any other religion's leaders in the HoL.
We - and I say this with much respect - are not a normal country.
The best thing is parts of our constitution is based on a letter to The Times.
Yanks, you can stick your Bill of Rights up your jacksie.
Does anyone think it's possible Starmer might go on Friday if the Caerphilly by-election is even more appalling for Labour than the 12% they were on in the opinion poll?
Does anyone think it's possible Starmer might go on Friday if the Caerphilly by-election is even more appalling for Labour than the 12% they were on in the opinion poll?
I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.
I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?
Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.
Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.
Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
Sounds like making Islam an established Episcopal religion with Imams appointed by a hierarchy ultimately controlled by the State. And with a few imams in the House of Lords.
That worked for Christianity - but only because we had the other side as well. A chunk of the radical preachers (and adherents) who wouldn’t accept secular/royal/establishment authority were squeezed into emigration, imprisoned or, in some cases, disposed of.
Didn't work for a lot of Christianity, still very much present in the UK. All the Scots Presbyterians, for instance, are unrepresented as such in the HoL. Religious Society of Friends, RCs, etc. etc. also lack any formal representation.
I would allow representatives of other denominations leaders to be in the Lords as well as some imams, rabbis and Hindu and Sikh leaders.
I would also reduce the C of E Bishops in the Lords to just the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, Winchester and London ie the most senior ones. That would better reflect 21st century UK and you could add a few humanists as well. After all the King had representatives of all denominations and faiths at his coronation and a few humanists as well.
The Vatican still won’t allow their UK Bishops to be in the Lords though as as far as they are concerned the Church of England is still officially a heretic church and having a presence in the House of Lords would undermine their bishops loyalty to the Pope and Holy See
We should do what normal countries do and not have Bishops or any other religion's leaders in the HoL.
We - and I say this with much respect - are not a normal country.
The best thing is parts of our constitution is based on a letter to The Times.
Yanks, you can stick your Bill of Rights up your jacksie.
I think Trump has already done that given the amount of brown stuff all over it.
42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.
Idea: anyone who makes it across 5 times should be offered an automatic commission into the Royal Marines.
10+ years service and they get British Citizenship.
My maternal grandfather made it across the channel in a boat (circa 1940). He finally left the army after the Korean war, so as a fully integrated 3rd generation Polish immigrant, I fully agree that this process will work.
Does anyone think it's possible Starmer might go on Friday if the Caerphilly by-election is even more appalling for Labour than the 12% they were on in the opinion poll?
No.
More interestingly will be the blame game, some hot Llafur on Labour action I expect.
I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.
I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?
Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.
Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.
Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
Sounds like making Islam an established Episcopal religion with Imams appointed by a hierarchy ultimately controlled by the State. And with a few imams in the House of Lords.
That worked for Christianity - but only because we had the other side as well. A chunk of the radical preachers (and adherents) who wouldn’t accept secular/royal/establishment authority were squeezed into emigration, imprisoned or, in some cases, disposed of.
Didn't work for a lot of Christianity, still very much present in the UK. All the Scots Presbyterians, for instance, are unrepresented as such in the HoL. Religious Society of Friends, RCs, etc. etc. also lack any formal representation.
I would allow representatives of other denominations leaders to be in the Lords as well as some imams, rabbis and Hindu and Sikh leaders.
I would also reduce the C of E Bishops in the Lords to just the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, Winchester and London ie the most senior ones. That would better reflect 21st century UK and you could add a few humanists as well. After all the King had representatives of all denominations and faiths at his coronation and a few humanists as well.
The Vatican still won’t allow their UK Bishops to be in the Lords though as as far as they are concerned the Church of England is still officially a heretic church and having a presence in the House of Lords would undermine their bishops loyalty to the Pope and Holy See
We should do what normal countries do and not have Bishops or any other religion's leaders in the HoL.
No otherwise you just have a fully elected upper house like the US, with the legislative deadlock that results.
As long as we have an appointed House of Lords then some bishops and faith leaders must be in it
Does anyone think it's possible Starmer might go on Friday if the Caerphilly by-election is even more appalling for Labour than the 12% they were on in the opinion poll?
No as those would just be tactical votes from Labour voters for Plaid to try and beat Reform
42 people have now been returned to France under the swapping scheme pilot. Although I guess that total is now 41 until this guy is sent back again.
Idea: anyone who makes it across 5 times should be offered an automatic commission into the Royal Marines.
10+ years service and they get British Citizenship.
My idea has always been impressment into the Royal Navy.
It’s traditional values at work.
Not much scope for pulley-hauly work in the modern RN: at least the unskilled could always pull a rope when commanded, as part of the afterguard, in the old RN which nevertheless much preferred to impress trained seamen (and, strictly, couldn't impress anyone else). Unless experience with computer games counts?
Anyone who can navigate the Channel in a small boat has their small boat skills sorted.
Great for that interdiction stuff they love putting in the adverts for the RN.
As to the impressment - that’ll be handled by a special unit of Customs. Complete with tricorn hats, frock coats with large brass buttons and cudgels.
I’ve never seen a frock coat with a cudgel. Where can I buy one?
I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.
I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?
Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.
Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.
Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
Sounds like making Islam an established Episcopal religion with Imams appointed by a hierarchy ultimately controlled by the State. And with a few imams in the House of Lords.
That worked for Christianity - but only because we had the other side as well. A chunk of the radical preachers (and adherents) who wouldn’t accept secular/royal/establishment authority were squeezed into emigration, imprisoned or, in some cases, disposed of.
Didn't work for a lot of Christianity, still very much present in the UK. All the Scots Presbyterians, for instance, are unrepresented as such in the HoL. Religious Society of Friends, RCs, etc. etc. also lack any formal representation.
I would allow representatives of other denominations leaders to be in the Lords as well as some imams, rabbis and Hindu and Sikh leaders.
I would also reduce the C of E Bishops in the Lords to just the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, Winchester and London ie the most senior ones. That would better reflect 21st century UK and you could add a few humanists as well. After all the King had representatives of all denominations and faiths at his coronation and a few humanists as well.
The Vatican still won’t allow their UK Bishops to be in the Lords though as as far as they are concerned the Church of England is still officially a heretic church and having a presence in the House of Lords would undermine their bishops loyalty to the Pope and Holy See
We should do what normal countries do and not have Bishops or any other religion's leaders in the HoL.
We should do what normal countries do and not have a House Of Lords.
Does anyone think it's possible Starmer might go on Friday if the Caerphilly by-election is even more appalling for Labour than the 12% they were on in the opinion poll?
I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.
I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?
Integration of Islam into the totality of the UK setup is the only non fascist/non racist option. It makes no difference that lots of people think, and thought at the time, that this wasn't a great idea. It has occurred over decades and isn't going to reverse without a policy which is repugnant to most minds.
Three starting points for thinking about it: Most Muslims in this country are sane decent people; coverage of the Islamaic world in the west, as well as aspects of foreign policy, has been sub-optimal; Islamic integration in the USA has been more stable than here.
Everything is impossible until it isn't, and necessity is the mother of invention. In the quieter world of moderate religious thought, the three great monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianty and Judaism are all taken with deep seriousness as major forces with great potential for good.
You said this yesterday and I have no idea what you mean by it. What laws would your integration project introduce?
Sounds like making Islam an established Episcopal religion with Imams appointed by a hierarchy ultimately controlled by the State. And with a few imams in the House of Lords.
That worked for Christianity - but only because we had the other side as well. A chunk of the radical preachers (and adherents) who wouldn’t accept secular/royal/establishment authority were squeezed into emigration, imprisoned or, in some cases, disposed of.
Didn't work for a lot of Christianity, still very much present in the UK. All the Scots Presbyterians, for instance, are unrepresented as such in the HoL. Religious Society of Friends, RCs, etc. etc. also lack any formal representation.
I would allow representatives of other denominations leaders to be in the Lords as well as some imams, rabbis and Hindu and Sikh leaders.
I would also reduce the C of E Bishops in the Lords to just the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, Winchester and London ie the most senior ones. That would better reflect 21st century UK and you could add a few humanists as well. After all the King had representatives of all denominations and faiths at his coronation and a few humanists as well.
The Vatican still won’t allow their UK Bishops to be in the Lords though as as far as they are concerned the Church of England is still officially a heretic church and having a presence in the House of Lords would undermine their bishops loyalty to the Pope and Holy See
We should do what normal countries do and not have Bishops or any other religion's leaders in the HoL.
We - and I say this with much respect - are not a normal country.
The English law on contracts and the law on consumer protection are both influenced by snails
Which explains why the legal system works so slowly.
Does anyone think it's possible Starmer might go on Friday if the Caerphilly by-election is even more appalling for Labour than the 12% they were on in the opinion poll?
Does anyone think it's possible Starmer might go on Friday if the Caerphilly by-election is even more appalling for Labour than the 12% they were on in the opinion poll?
No, the bar is much higher than that and he’ll still have a massive majority. So long as he can pass the Budget, he’ll be staying.
One factor that will discourage Russia from agreeing to a ceasefire is the sense that if they fail to achieve victory this time, they won't get another chance.
Perhaps Ukraine will be left broke and penniless after a ceasefire, and won't be able to afford 150 Gripen jets, but the chances are that Ukraine will be in a much stronger position for any resumption of hostilities after a ceasefire.
This implies that Russia have to be forced into a ceasefire as the only alternative to defeat.
I think the only exit from the war will be a Korea style ceasefire in place. An endless war, but without shooting.
Might well be an informal ceasefire. Russian stops attacking, and Ukraine stops droning the refineries.
An actual end to the war without Russia winning will be fatal to Putin.
I've always felt that a Korea style long ceasefire without any legal concessions on either side is the only feasible solution. Russia needs to be further ground down until it comes to the table. But Putin might not survive that solution so will resist until his associates insist. Could take a long time.
I don't think that should stand. Is there case law?
The offence is:Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
IMO down a drain is not likely to pollute land or water. We have these regs; I have not gone all the way down the rabbit hole.
To wit (1)Subject to [F1subsections (1A), (1B), (2) and (3) below] and, in relation to Scotland, to section 54 below, a person shall not— .. (1)(c)treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste [F5or extractive waste] in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/33
Then we have further specifying: (3)Subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) above do not apply in cases prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State and the regulations may make different exceptions for different areas.
(4)The Secretary of State, in exercising his power under subsection (3) above, shall have regard in particular to the expediency of excluding from [F9the prohibitions in subsection (1)]—
(a)any deposits which are small enough or of such a temporary nature that they may be so excluded;
(b)any means of treatment or disposal which are innocuous enough to be so excluded;
(c)cases for which adequate controls are provided by another enactment than this section.
I have not been to look for the actual regulations.
I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.
I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?
The burqa definitely shouldn't be banned in ordinary public spaces because banning things isn't the British way of doing things.
All those scary face coverings need to be banned...
I take a pretty dim view of, for instance, Islamist migrants who come to live in the UK and see their primary allegiance as being to the ummah. It's also rather fanciful to believe we can integrate such people into our society. However I'm not sure what you can do about people who have been afforded settled status already. Rather we should think more carefully about who we allow into the country in future.
I'd also be sceptical of banning the burka (do they mean niqab?). That in itself exposes the problem. What would the law be? That you have to show your face in public?
The burqa definitely shouldn't be banned in ordinary public spaces because banning things isn't the British way of doing things.
All those scary face coverings need to be banned...
"Scary"? In my backward Cotswold nanotown we'd assume they were promoting our AmDram society's next panto. Or launching a local slightlybiggertown Monty Python remake.
Comments
Perhaps Ukraine will be left broke and penniless after a ceasefire, and won't be able to afford 150 Gripen jets, but the chances are that Ukraine will be in a much stronger position for any resumption of hostilities after a ceasefire.
This implies that Russia have to be forced into a ceasefire as the only alternative to defeat.
Could work.
It’s traditional values at work.
Might well be an informal ceasefire. Russian stops attacking, and Ukraine stops droning the refineries.
An actual end to the war without Russia winning will be fatal to Putin.
"Auslander Raus"
"Yes, I thought so: thank you Siri"
One thing they talked about recently on the Telegraph's Ukraine the latest podcast was the suggestion that Putin is being systematically lied to by his subordinates about the progress of the war, and so he has an inflated confidence about the likelihood of achieving complete victory if he holds to the current course.
This again also suggests that only the undeniable prospect of imminent defeat could force a ceasefire - at which point, does a ceasefire make sense to Ukraine?
Great for that interdiction stuff they love putting in the adverts for the RN.
As to the impressment - that’ll be handled by a special unit of Customs. Complete with tricorn hats, frock coats with large brass buttons and cudgels.
..
The English law on contracts and the law on consumer protection are both influenced by snails
Yanks, you can stick your Bill of Rights up your jacksie.
NEW THREAD
As long as we have an appointed House of Lords then some bishops and faith leaders must be in it
But Putin might not survive that solution so will resist until his associates insist. Could take a long time.
The offence is:Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
IMO down a drain is not likely to pollute land or water. We have these regs; I have not gone all the way down the rabbit hole.
To wit
(1)Subject to [F1subsections (1A), (1B), (2) and (3) below] and, in relation to Scotland, to section 54 below, a person shall not—
..
(1)(c)treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste [F5or extractive waste] in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/33
Then we have further specifying:
(3)Subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) above do not apply in cases prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State and the regulations may make different exceptions for different areas.
(4)The Secretary of State, in exercising his power under subsection (3) above, shall have regard in particular to the expediency of excluding from [F9the prohibitions in subsection (1)]—
(a)any deposits which are small enough or of such a temporary nature that they may be so excluded;
(b)any means of treatment or disposal which are innocuous enough to be so excluded;
(c)cases for which adequate controls are provided by another enactment than this section.
I have not been to look for the actual regulations.