3 year driving ban is absurd for the Liverpool Parade driver. If that's not a life ban, what is? We should not be expected up share the road with someone like this.
Government should pass some urgent legislation that ensures life ban from driving if a vehicle is used as a weapon.
Is that AFTER the 21 years in prison? (Ok I know he will be out sooner, but still).
After. I still thinks it's completely absurd, the idea that someone with a history of using a car as weapon again hundreds of people, including children in prams, should be allowed behind the wheel again? It's an outrage.
Its a really odd one. Has he ever done anything like this before? (History of driving offences?). And yes, you can make the case for never being allowed to drive after something like this. Personally I'd prefer it if he had to prove a positive about his behaviour having changed, but maybe thats not something the system allows.
The trouble is the detection rate is so low. The guy was driving like a twat in the run up to the attack, repeatedly through red lights. Even Dura_Ace has still got a licence.
I've got multiple licences to spread the offenses around and circumvent Europcar's blacklist. British, Russian, Saudi, etc.
Good luck showing a Russian driving licence to a British copper.
I recently hired cars in Spain and Switzerland with it and a Chinese credit card. What sanctions?
A Cypriot licence used to be the business for dumping speeding infringements because they were ridiculously simple to acquire. I've produced that to fat, baffled coppers in the UK loads of times. However, there is now some bilateral deal between Cyprus and the UK were the authorities talk to each other. Czech licences are supposed to be good, but they are no longer easy to get.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
add pension contributions , cushy number , conditions etc and it is the opposite.
I think it very much depends where you are. In most of Scotland public sector pay is actually substantially ahead of what the private sector is offering. So, for example, a one year qualified solicitor in the private sector will earn somewhere between £40 and £50k outside the most demanding areas. A procurator fiscal with the same qualifications will be paid £52-54K plus the extras that come from the public sector such as pension rights, more holidays, better sick pay, greater security of employment etc.
This is a problem for the private firms and more generally it is a real problem for the economy since the cream of the crop are tempted to the public sector where their skills are not necessarily fully utilised. This makes growing businesses in Scotland, and in other areas with depressed earnings, much more difficult and removes potential innovators or entrepreneurs from the scene.
In contrast, in more affluent areas we see the public sector really struggling to get qualified staff at all because they cannot compete with what is on offer.
The combination of these effects are to depress growth, entrepreneurship and investment in our poorer areas and to increase these in the richer ones. This is one of the major reasons so much money invested in "levelling up" , regional investment funds etc has simply not worked. Ironically, given this money is public sector driven, it can aggravate the problem rather than address it. Do you want a safe, secure, well paid job in some "enterprise company" or take your chances with a dodgy start up?
I think it is a major factor in our economic performance because we create this huge drag factor. Only existing hot spots can create the opportunities and employment needed for growth. Everywhere else the dead hand of an overheavy, over paid public sector destroys growth.
Which is why there should be no national pay agreements in the public sector. Each local organisation needs to deal with their own pay.
Possibly the best thing they could do is move the public sector pensions to DC scheme, but that has a significant short term cost.
As was mentioned upthread, the vast majority of public sector workers have no idea just how bad are most private-sector pensions now.
One of the largest public sector pension schemes is the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which is DB. Do you think that should move to DC? Should there be local pay agreements such that squaddies in The Royal Anglian Regiment get different pay to those in The Royal Yorkshire Regiment?
Also, a lot of public sector pensions *are* private pensions in nature.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
Ha ha, I was wondering when British politics version of Joey Deacon would comment.
You have some brass neck needling me about my criticism of the Lib Dem’s, you’re utterly obsessed with Trump. You probably dream about him. 😂
Once he is gone from office, I'll happily ignore him forever. Until then, his actions are, unfortunately, highly consequential for the entire world.
Good.
Until last November you were a pleasant, rational, poster never rude to anyone.
Since the election you’ve become obsessed with Trump and quite happy to make personal comments to people who have never made them to you. Like myself a few times concerning Lib Dem’s. For example my posts on the Lib Dem’s are like the noise a fly makes to you. Not quite sure what you get from it but if it makes you happy, but it’s a shitty thing to say to someone who’s never insulted you.
Hope the old Nigelb returns.
You give as good as you get, Taz, but if I've genuinely upset you there, then apologies.
I do usually, Nigel, I’ll admit it but I’ve not to you.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
So Ed Davey has no comment to make on the actual merits of the case, he just reflexively says BBCGood and OrangeManBad.
The claim that the $5bn lawsuit is "outrageous" is implicitly a comment on the merits of the case. $5bn is, indeed, clearly outrageous. The largest defamation settlement by the media in US history is the $787.5 million paid by Fox News to Dominion Voting Systems in 2023, when Fox repeated Trump's false claims about the election. The BBC case is a one-off bad edit and wasn't broadcast in the US, it clearly doesn't remotely approach the scale of Fox News's comments about Dominion, but Trump is claiming over 6 times as much in damages.
Alex Jones has faced over $1bn in settlements for his lies over Sandy Hook, but that's across several different trials. Again, Jones' persistent campaign against the Sandy Hook victims is many orders of magnitude greater than one bad edit, and yet Trump thinks he deserves nearly 5 times as much.
You repeatedly dismiss comments as "OrangeManBad", but you don't ever explain how the Orange Man is not bad. How is Trump selling Ukraine down the river not bad? How were his comments about the murder of Rob Reiner remotely acceptable?
Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board has reached its discovery phase. Trump claims physical and mental anguish.The board wants all Trump physical and mental examinations, medications, and tax returns for proof.
Ukraine starting to lose German and French voter support which is pretty concerning. I suspect we shall get a bad peace deal in 2026, which will give the global economy a temporary boost but at the expense of emboldening Putin and might is right generally.
We won’t, Zelensky will only accept a ceasefire on current lines and Putin will only accept a ceasefire with Russia getting given more Ukrainian territory
A settlement on current lines wouldn't be good for VVP. Odessa might just make it all worth it. It was the Kulkovye Polye protests/massacre and subsequent firestorm of disinformation from both sides in 2014 that so inflamed Russian ire and germinated the conflict. Getting Katherine's city back would be the sort of sentimental symmetry that nourishes the Slavic psyche.
I see Big Z has now given up on joining NATO so you can sort of see the hazy outlines of a deal that could emerge. Russia will need more though.
Given the state of the Russian Black Sea fleet, Odessa looks unattainable.
Russian navy down one submarine, taken out by Ukranian suicide drone sub while in port at Novorossiysk.
Stand by for a few more Ukranian drone subs heading for Novorossiysk in the coming days and weeks.
I was watching video of that yesterday. The drone rounded several ships and harbour fittings before hitting the submarine. It was seriously impressive but also a bit scary. I really wonder if the RN would have fared any better if facing such an attack.
Very scary. This new drone is basically a navigable torpedo that can go anywhere.
One assumes that the Royal Navy takes port security a little more seriously than the Russians, and can spot an enemy vessel approaching!
That's the rational for the sea drones the RN is testing. But it would require an awful lot of them, and I doubt the MoD has the money.
They surely need satellites to navigate and I imagine in a big war scenario those satellites will be gone in minutes?
There’s probably an inertia/star chart/object recognition/local radio towers based solution that doesn’t need satellites.
Some combination of INS and sea bed mapping.
Whatever this was, it wasn't a Sea Baby/Magura 5 as they 6m long surface vessels and there is nothing like that on the video.
The Ukranians were obviously active inside the port because they had that camera feed so it might be covert mine laying marketed as a new wonder drone for PR purposes.
A submersible drone is not really a massive advance on previously deployed technology, but it's definitely +1 for Ukraine that there's one less submarine to launch Kalibr cruise missiles.
In all the previous sea drone attacks, they used Starlink to control them.
It’s not hard to imagine a submersible drone that runs inertially, then comes up for orders.
The mini-Starlink dishes are pretty small now and the quality of the “lock” is crazy. In the US, the standard land based ones were getting popular with private pilots, before SpaceX clamped down on max speed) and there is a thing for mounting them for off road motorcycle races.
There’s rumours around of SpaceX spinning off Starlink with in IPO next year, potentially valued at $500bn. It’s a crazy technology and they’re years ahead of their competition in this space.
Not rumours - and they're not spinning off Starlink.
Musk is talking about taking the whole thing public - but only selling 2% of the (non-voting) shares to the public.
So he will still have 80% of the voting stock.
If they only sell 2% there will be a massive scramble for it, inflating the value even further.
He wants to see the value of the company but without jeopardising the Mars mission, which is his lifetime’s passion.
I thought his lifetime's passion was white supremacism.
add pension contributions , cushy number , conditions etc and it is the opposite.
I think it very much depends where you are. In most of Scotland public sector pay is actually substantially ahead of what the private sector is offering. So, for example, a one year qualified solicitor in the private sector will earn somewhere between £40 and £50k outside the most demanding areas. A procurator fiscal with the same qualifications will be paid £52-54K plus the extras that come from the public sector such as pension rights, more holidays, better sick pay, greater security of employment etc.
This is a problem for the private firms and more generally it is a real problem for the economy since the cream of the crop are tempted to the public sector where their skills are not necessarily fully utilised. This makes growing businesses in Scotland, and in other areas with depressed earnings, much more difficult and removes potential innovators or entrepreneurs from the scene.
In contrast, in more affluent areas we see the public sector really struggling to get qualified staff at all because they cannot compete with what is on offer.
The combination of these effects are to depress growth, entrepreneurship and investment in our poorer areas and to increase these in the richer ones. This is one of the major reasons so much money invested in "levelling up" , regional investment funds etc has simply not worked. Ironically, given this money is public sector driven, it can aggravate the problem rather than address it. Do you want a safe, secure, well paid job in some "enterprise company" or take your chances with a dodgy start up?
I think it is a major factor in our economic performance because we create this huge drag factor. Only existing hot spots can create the opportunities and employment needed for growth. Everywhere else the dead hand of an overheavy, over paid public sector destroys growth.
Which is why there should be no national pay agreements in the public sector. Each local organisation needs to deal with their own pay.
Possibly the best thing they could do is move the public sector pensions to DC scheme, but that has a significant short term cost.
As was mentioned upthread, the vast majority of public sector workers have no idea just how bad are most private-sector pensions now.
One of the largest public sector pension schemes is the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which is DB. Do you think that should move to DC? Should there be local pay agreements such that squaddies in The Royal Anglian Regiment get different pay to those in The Royal Yorkshire Regiment?
Hmm, [edit] differential benefits already exist, albeit primarily in salary (but feeding into pensions, one assumes). Remember when the Scottish Gmt raised income tax for some and lowered it for others. Cue performative indignation about brgadiers etc. having to pay more tax, and the Tory Gmt at Westminster increasing the salary of those unfortunates sent North of the Border (you'd think it was Beyond the Wall). But did they have indignation about the poor squaddies paying more tax in England, still less more salary? No, siree, they did not.
Edit: also the location of a regiment has no great relation in modern MoDthink to where they are/were nominally raised.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
Starmer should take a leaf out of Trump's playbook - and pardon the BBC and all involved.
He doesn't have to (not that he could), since there is no real case. It's impossible for Trump to argue damages from being accused of encouraging a group of people to do something that he regards as blameless - since he pardoned every single one of them.
And the effect of literally any comment, on the reputation of a man who tweeted what he did about the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife, is quite obviously nugatory.
Plenty of his own side called out the Rob Reiner comment, in fact almost all of them did.
One doesn’t speak ill of the dead, especially given the horrific circumstances.
I wonder if the likes of LBC and Times Radio will reputation wash Trump over this like they did thst Oxford Uni student who gloated about Charlie Kirk’s death 🤔
One is a student one is the President of the United States. Pathetic whataboutery from the Trump apologists today.
Show me one post I’ve ever made in support of Trump. I was one of the first to post about his Reiner comments and condemn them. I also contrasted it with Reiners classy comments about Kirk’s death.
The press is hypocritical and is happy to forgive those it supports. That’s my point.
3 year driving ban is absurd for the Liverpool Parade driver. If that's not a life ban, what is? We should not be expected up share the road with someone like this.
Government should pass some urgent legislation that ensures life ban from driving if a vehicle is used as a weapon.
I think the Judge already has discretion to impose longer bans, relating to any offence where a motor vehicle is part of the offence.
I'm not sure if in England that extends to the possibility of a life ban, which I think I have seen reported in Scotland. The measure could be eg life ban as a presumption in such cases rebuttable by psychological and capability evidence after a court-defined period.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
add pension contributions , cushy number , conditions etc and it is the opposite.
I think it very much depends where you are. In most of Scotland public sector pay is actually substantially ahead of what the private sector is offering. So, for example, a one year qualified solicitor in the private sector will earn somewhere between £40 and £50k outside the most demanding areas. A procurator fiscal with the same qualifications will be paid £52-54K plus the extras that come from the public sector such as pension rights, more holidays, better sick pay, greater security of employment etc.
This is a problem for the private firms and more generally it is a real problem for the economy since the cream of the crop are tempted to the public sector where their skills are not necessarily fully utilised. This makes growing businesses in Scotland, and in other areas with depressed earnings, much more difficult and removes potential innovators or entrepreneurs from the scene.
In contrast, in more affluent areas we see the public sector really struggling to get qualified staff at all because they cannot compete with what is on offer.
The combination of these effects are to depress growth, entrepreneurship and investment in our poorer areas and to increase these in the richer ones. This is one of the major reasons so much money invested in "levelling up" , regional investment funds etc has simply not worked. Ironically, given this money is public sector driven, it can aggravate the problem rather than address it. Do you want a safe, secure, well paid job in some "enterprise company" or take your chances with a dodgy start up?
I think it is a major factor in our economic performance because we create this huge drag factor. Only existing hot spots can create the opportunities and employment needed for growth. Everywhere else the dead hand of an overheavy, over paid public sector destroys growth.
Which is why there should be no national pay agreements in the public sector. Each local organisation needs to deal with their own pay.
Possibly the best thing they could do is move the public sector pensions to DC scheme, but that has a significant short term cost.
As was mentioned upthread, the vast majority of public sector workers have no idea just how bad are most private-sector pensions now.
One of the largest public sector pension schemes is the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which is DB. Do you think that should move to DC? Should there be local pay agreements such that squaddies in The Royal Anglian Regiment get different pay to those in The Royal Yorkshire Regiment?
The post 2015 AFPS is pretty shit compared to the 2005 version and very shit compared the glory days of the AFPS75 scheme (thank the God of War I'm on that). It's a big reason why we have a retention crisis at SNCO level, it's no longer worth staying in for...
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
To think there were people blaming Liverpool fans for this act of terror.
I might name and shame some people later.
Liverpool as a place and as fans inhabit a weird land of being victims and loving being victims. What happened at the parade was horrific - one man's inability to control his anger and entitlement. And in recent times Liverpool fans have been far more sinned against than sinners. But I still recall Heysel, and I think too many make martyrs of the 96, and forget the 39. Johnson was not always wrong in the things he said.
That suggests that Heysel “balances out” all the bad things that Liverpool have endured. Whilst Heysel was the fault of Liverpool hooligans (and others) at that time in football, in England especially but also in Italy to a large extent, hooliganism and fan violence by firms and ultras was rife and would be staggering to us to see it now. There is every chance that fans of other clubs could have been the ones responsible for a Heysel type event however the fact that Liverpool were constantly in Europe increased the chances that it would be them and the well documented failure in crowd control and problems with the stadium played parts that would amplify “regular” football terrace violence into a brutal tragedy.
Liverpool never forgets Heysel and they wear it as a badge of shame however, as I said it doesn’t equalise Hilsborough, Jota or the parade.
The fact that Liverpool went through a super shitty period for decades and was largely vilified and mocked as a city and the people in a way no other English cities have been understandably makes them prickly and looking at slights.
Not really my intention to make it about balancing out. Its more that Hillsborough happened because footballs fans (not just Liverpool) created a need for fencing. Some of the blame for Hillsborough is on football hooligans themselves, such as those who killed 39 at Heysel. Clearly Heysel could have been other fans as could have been Hillsborough.
Hillsborough was terrible stadium design, massive overcrowding and awful crowd control by the police.
Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board has reached its discovery phase. Trump claims physical and mental anguish.The board wants all Trump physical and mental examinations, medications, and tax returns for proof.
Trump has never won a defamation lawsuit, despite launching many. And he still owes Jean Carroll millions for defaming her.
Yup - it's law fare shakedown, US style.
I recall, with some hilarity, someone trying that on the building firm I am associated with. They sued (for specious reasons) on the basis of "We'll drop the suit if you drop the price of the half completed contract". Being idiots, they hadn't bothered to read the original contract - which specified independent arbitration for disputes with legal action only after that was exhausted. So when they went to court....
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
Ukraine starting to lose German and French voter support which is pretty concerning. I suspect we shall get a bad peace deal in 2026, which will give the global economy a temporary boost but at the expense of emboldening Putin and might is right generally.
We won’t, Zelensky will only accept a ceasefire on current lines and Putin will only accept a ceasefire with Russia getting given more Ukrainian territory
A settlement on current lines wouldn't be good for VVP. Odessa might just make it all worth it. It was the Kulkovye Polye protests/massacre and subsequent firestorm of disinformation from both sides in 2014 that so inflamed Russian ire and germinated the conflict. Getting Katherine's city back would be the sort of sentimental symmetry that nourishes the Slavic psyche.
I see Big Z has now given up on joining NATO so you can sort of see the hazy outlines of a deal that could emerge. Russia will need more though.
Given the state of the Russian Black Sea fleet, Odessa looks unattainable.
Russian navy down one submarine, taken out by Ukranian suicide drone sub while in port at Novorossiysk.
Stand by for a few more Ukranian drone subs heading for Novorossiysk in the coming days and weeks.
I was watching video of that yesterday. The drone rounded several ships and harbour fittings before hitting the submarine. It was seriously impressive but also a bit scary. I really wonder if the RN would have fared any better if facing such an attack.
Very scary. This new drone is basically a navigable torpedo that can go anywhere.
One assumes that the Royal Navy takes port security a little more seriously than the Russians, and can spot an enemy vessel approaching!
That's the rational for the sea drones the RN is testing. But it would require an awful lot of them, and I doubt the MoD has the money.
They surely need satellites to navigate and I imagine in a big war scenario those satellites will be gone in minutes?
There’s probably an inertia/star chart/object recognition/local radio towers based solution that doesn’t need satellites.
Some combination of INS and sea bed mapping.
Whatever this was, it wasn't a Sea Baby/Magura 5 as they 6m long surface vessels and there is nothing like that on the video.
The Ukranians were obviously active inside the port because they had that camera feed so it might be covert mine laying marketed as a new wonder drone for PR purposes.
A submersible drone is not really a massive advance on previously deployed technology, but it's definitely +1 for Ukraine that there's one less submarine to launch Kalibr cruise missiles.
In all the previous sea drone attacks, they used Starlink to control them.
It’s not hard to imagine a submersible drone that runs inertially, then comes up for orders.
The mini-Starlink dishes are pretty small now and the quality of the “lock” is crazy. In the US, the standard land based ones were getting popular with private pilots, before SpaceX clamped down on max speed) and there is a thing for mounting them for off road motorcycle races.
There’s rumours around of SpaceX spinning off Starlink with in IPO next year, potentially valued at $500bn. It’s a crazy technology and they’re years ahead of their competition in this space.
Not rumours - and they're not spinning off Starlink.
Musk is talking about taking the whole thing public - but only selling 2% of the (non-voting) shares to the public.
So he will still have 80% of the voting stock.
If they only sell 2% there will be a massive scramble for it, inflating the value even further.
He wants to see the value of the company but without jeopardising the Mars mission, which is his lifetime’s passion.
I thought his lifetime's passion was white supremacism.
There's a synergy. The dream is to facilitate white flight from Earth to bigger and better places. It's a tall order but if anyone can Elon can.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
A person I knew who taught him English (he took a short course in Beaconsfield) in the 60s said he was just another pleasant ish young guy but didn't stand out in any way.
Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board has reached its discovery phase. Trump claims physical and mental anguish.The board wants all Trump physical and mental examinations, medications, and tax returns for proof.
Trump has never won a defamation lawsuit, despite launching many. And he still owes Jean Carroll millions for defaming her.
Yup - it's law fare shakedown, US style.
I recall, with some hilarity, someone trying that on the building firm I am associated with. They sued (for specious reasons) on the basis of "We'll drop the suit if you drop the price of the half completed contract". Being idiots, they hadn't bothered to read the original contract - which specified independent arbitration for disputes with legal action only after that was exhausted. So when they went to court....
Don’t all major contracts have an arbitration clause ? Certainly ours used to.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Yes, roads used to be better. An easy insight on that is to find a spot, and compare streetview for 2022 and 2009. I now have bushes growing out of some of my local pedestrian refuges.
They have never been good in the UK since the war, as we have no system to our maintenance, and Tom Dick or Harry can dig holes and botch the repairs.
Starmer's Govt are too timid to change this, and the Conservatives like a wild west system.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
A person I knew who taught him English (he took a short course in Beaconsfield) in the 60s said he was just another pleasant ish young guy but didn't stand out in any way.
A friend of a friend had eye problems as a kid. Recently, her parents were clearing stuff out and gave her a bunch of medical records from her childhood. She was curious to look through these and to find out the name of the lovely doctor who she had seen as a child. Guess who it was?
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
A person I knew who taught him English (he took a short course in Beaconsfield) in the 60s said he was just another pleasant ish young guy but didn't stand out in any way.
A friend of a friend had eye problems as a kid. Recently, her parents were clearing stuff out and gave her a bunch of medical records from her childhood. She was curious to look through these and to find out the name of the lovely doctor who she had seen as a child. Guess who it was?
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Certainly around here the road quality seems pretty poor -- the council seems to manage to do point fixes on the worst stuff but there's too much "usable but lousy" roadway that really could use a complete resurfacing.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
Starmer should take a leaf out of Trump's playbook - and pardon the BBC and all involved.
He doesn't have to (not that he could), since there is no real case. It's impossible for Trump to argue damages from being accused of encouraging a group of people to do something that he regards as blameless - since he pardoned every single one of them.
And the effect of literally any comment, on the reputation of a man who tweeted what he did about the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife, is quite obviously nugatory.
Plenty of his own side called out the Rob Reiner comment, in fact almost all of them did.
One doesn’t speak ill of the dead, especially given the horrific circumstances.
I wonder if the likes of LBC and Times Radio will reputation wash Trump over this like they did thst Oxford Uni student who gloated about Charlie Kirk’s death 🤔
One is a student one is the President of the United States. Pathetic whataboutery from the Trump apologists today.
Show me one post I’ve ever made in support of Trump. I was one of the first to post about his Reiner comments and condemn them. I also contrasted it with Reiners classy comments about Kirk’s death.
The press is hypocritical and is happy to forgive those it supports. That’s my point.
Fair enough, I don't read every comment but as a stand alone comment you appear to be claiming equivalence between something a random student said and something the President of The US has said.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
So Ed Davey has no comment to make on the actual merits of the case, he just reflexively says BBCGood and OrangeManBad.
What merits of the case could Trump possibly have? I mean Davey really doesn't have to go into analysis mode on this
He said to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”, but the BBC said that he said march to the Capitol “and fight like Hell”.
Given that there was actually a disturbance at the Capitol after the event at which he spoke, a reputable journalist might want to make sure that his words were accurately reported.
The actual quote is
I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Trump used the word fight twenty times. Is it plausible he wasn't inciting the mob?
The problem is getting the two facts to be admitted
- Trump incited the Jan 6 riot and attempted to steal the Presidency by pushing the VP to not validate the result. - The BBC fucked up in editing the speech
Bit like Alison Rose and Coutts losing a truth telling competition with Nigel Fucking Farage. As a result of which they had to make Farage rich enough to have a Coutts account again.
Wronging a Wong'un Doesn't Make A Right.
I think the BBC should fight the Trump suit, by the way.
I think the BBC has said as much itself. Senior directors have resigned, and it has apologised.
That ought to be the end of the matter, since the edit was bad journalism, not libel.
Paying damages would be admitting something which is not true, and would be as bad if not worse than the original mistake.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
So Ed Davey has no comment to make on the actual merits of the case, he just reflexively says BBCGood and OrangeManBad.
What merits of the case could Trump possibly have? I mean Davey really doesn't have to go into analysis mode on this
He said to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”, but the BBC said that he said march to the Capitol “and fight like Hell”.
Given that there was actually a disturbance at the Capitol after the event at which he spoke, a reputable journalist might want to make sure that his words were accurately reported.
Pity you never seem to be as exercised by the lies that pour out of Trump's mouth on a daily basis.
I was having a go at Trump only this morning, over his comments on Rob Reiner and Ukraine.
That doesn’t mean that the BBC don’t have questions to answer over editing his words.
Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board has reached its discovery phase. Trump claims physical and mental anguish.The board wants all Trump physical and mental examinations, medications, and tax returns for proof.
Trump has never won a defamation lawsuit, despite launching many. And he still owes Jean Carroll millions for defaming her.
Yup - it's law fare shakedown, US style.
I recall, with some hilarity, someone trying that on the building firm I am associated with. They sued (for specious reasons) on the basis of "We'll drop the suit if you drop the price of the half completed contract". Being idiots, they hadn't bothered to read the original contract - which specified independent arbitration for disputes with legal action only after that was exhausted. So when they went to court....
Don’t all major contracts have an arbitration clause ? Certainly ours used to.
I think it was unusual in the domestic building industry at the time.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
Gaddafi was found of karaoke, and a fine snooker player, by all accounts.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
So Ed Davey has no comment to make on the actual merits of the case, he just reflexively says BBCGood and OrangeManBad.
What merits of the case could Trump possibly have? I mean Davey really doesn't have to go into analysis mode on this
He said to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”, but the BBC said that he said march to the Capitol “and fight like Hell”.
Given that there was actually a disturbance at the Capitol after the event at which he spoke, a reputable journalist might want to make sure that his words were accurately reported.
The actual quote is
I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Trump used the word fight twenty times. Is it plausible he wasn't inciting the mob?
The problem is getting the two facts to be admitted
- Trump incited the Jan 6 riot and attempted to steal the Presidency by pushing the VP to not validate the result. - The BBC fucked up in editing the speech
Bit like Alison Rose and Coutts losing a truth telling competition with Nigel Fucking Farage. As a result of which they had to make Farage rich enough to have a Coutts account again.
Wronging a Wong'un Doesn't Make A Right.
I think the BBC should fight the Trump suit, by the way.
I think the BBC has said as much itself. Senior directors have resigned, and it has apologised.
That ought to be the end of the matter, since the edit was bad journalism, not libel.
Paying damages would be admitting something which is not true, and would be as bad if not worse than the original mistake.
I'd understood it happened twice, on different programmes, and not just a second programme repeating the clip from the first. I can understand someone like Mr Trump suing, but I hope he doesn't prevail. Much better for the BBC to clean up its act.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Its not the roads its the lights on the vehicles. Way brighter, often set higher up on the vehicle. And the roads are busier.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
A person I knew who taught him English (he took a short course in Beaconsfield) in the 60s said he was just another pleasant ish young guy but didn't stand out in any way.
A friend of a friend had eye problems as a kid. Recently, her parents were clearing stuff out and gave her a bunch of medical records from her childhood. She was curious to look through these and to find out the name of the lovely doctor who she had seen as a child. Guess who it was?
Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board has reached its discovery phase. Trump claims physical and mental anguish.The board wants all Trump physical and mental examinations, medications, and tax returns for proof.
Trump has never won a defamation lawsuit, despite launching many. And he still owes Jean Carroll millions for defaming her.
Yup - it's law fare shakedown, US style.
I recall, with some hilarity, someone trying that on the building firm I am associated with. They sued (for specious reasons) on the basis of "We'll drop the suit if you drop the price of the half completed contract". Being idiots, they hadn't bothered to read the original contract - which specified independent arbitration for disputes with legal action only after that was exhausted. So when they went to court....
Don’t all major contracts have an arbitration clause ? Certainly ours used to.
Construction contracts in the UK generally do not.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.
Ah, I'd forgotten the 'Uncle Joe' title, but I thought I'd read he was genuinely fond of children, or animals, or something very touchy-feely; which somehow made up for all the mass slaughter.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Its not the roads its the lights on the vehicles. Way brighter, often set higher up on the vehicle. And the roads are busier.
The other four points are just mad...
Last Xmas was awful. We had a nice morning. Went to the pub, The Drawbridge in Shirley, had a nice drink and got onto the subject of the state pension. I just happened to mention it was a state benefit.
Oh dear. Arguments raged. Got the silent treatment off my wife for the rest of the day. As I’d had a drink I couldn’t drive to a B&B either.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
Hitler was just a paper hanger, no one more obscurer.
Suzie has been given her detention lines that she has to type out 100x
https://x.com/SusieWiles/status/2000943061627548148 The article published early this morning is a disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history.
Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story. I assume, after reading it, that this was done to paint an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the President and our team.
The truth is the Trump White House has already accomplished more in eleven months than any other President has accomplished in eight years and that is due to the unmatched leadership and vision of President Trump, for whom I have been honored to work for the better part of a decade.
None of this will stop our relentless pursuit of Making America Great Again!
"Disingenuously framed" is good, though polysyllables run counter to the style guide.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.
Ah, I'd forgotten the 'Uncle Joe' title, but I thought I'd read he was genuinely fond of children, or animals, or something very touchy-feely; which somehow made up for all the mass slaughter.
Stalin was ladykiller when young, and a complete party animal.
He graduated to killing ladies (and gents) on an epic scale. And used parties as a kind of punishment for his coterie - force people who didn’t like drinking to drink etc
Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board has reached its discovery phase. Trump claims physical and mental anguish.The board wants all Trump physical and mental examinations, medications, and tax returns for proof.
Trump has never won a defamation lawsuit, despite launching many. And he still owes Jean Carroll millions for defaming her.
Yup - it's law fare shakedown, US style.
I recall, with some hilarity, someone trying that on the building firm I am associated with. They sued (for specious reasons) on the basis of "We'll drop the suit if you drop the price of the half completed contract". Being idiots, they hadn't bothered to read the original contract - which specified independent arbitration for disputes with legal action only after that was exhausted. So when they went to court....
Don’t all major contracts have an arbitration clause ? Certainly ours used to.
Construction contracts in the UK generally do not.
Friends of ours who run a small cleaning company were offered a contract to clean some new build buildings. 150 day payment terms.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
So Ed Davey has no comment to make on the actual merits of the case, he just reflexively says BBCGood and OrangeManBad.
What merits of the case could Trump possibly have? I mean Davey really doesn't have to go into analysis mode on this
He said to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”, but the BBC said that he said march to the Capitol “and fight like Hell”.
Given that there was actually a disturbance at the Capitol after the event at which he spoke, a reputable journalist might want to make sure that his words were accurately reported.
Pity you never seem to be as exercised by the lies that pour out of Trump's mouth on a daily basis.
I was having a go at Trump only this morning, over his comments on Rob Reiner and Ukraine.
That doesn’t mean that the BBC don’t have questions to answer over editing his words.
You know PB, it’s always a purity test.
We have to compete in ever more fevered terms in criticising him.
I was condemning him yesterday for his words on Rob Reiner and last week for his economic ineptitude.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.
Ah, I'd forgotten the 'Uncle Joe' title, but I thought I'd read he was genuinely fond of children, or animals, or something very touchy-feely; which somehow made up for all the mass slaughter.
Stalin was ladykiller when young, and a complete party animal.
He graduated to killing ladies (and gents) on an epic scale. And used parties as a kind of punishment for his coterie - force people who didn’t like drinking to drink etc
I don't remember hearing about that. Maybe my recollection about the other things is quite wrong then.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
So Ed Davey has no comment to make on the actual merits of the case, he just reflexively says BBCGood and OrangeManBad.
What merits of the case could Trump possibly have? I mean Davey really doesn't have to go into analysis mode on this
He said to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”, but the BBC said that he said march to the Capitol “and fight like Hell”.
Given that there was actually a disturbance at the Capitol after the event at which he spoke, a reputable journalist might want to make sure that his words were accurately reported.
The actual quote is
I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Trump used the word fight twenty times. Is it plausible he wasn't inciting the mob?
The problem is getting the two facts to be admitted
- Trump incited the Jan 6 riot and attempted to steal the Presidency by pushing the VP to not validate the result. - The BBC fucked up in editing the speech
Bit like Alison Rose and Coutts losing a truth telling competition with Nigel Fucking Farage. As a result of which they had to make Farage rich enough to have a Coutts account again.
Wronging a Wong'un Doesn't Make A Right.
I think the BBC should fight the Trump suit, by the way.
I think the BBC has said as much itself. Senior directors have resigned, and it has apologised.
That ought to be the end of the matter, since the edit was bad journalism, not libel.
Paying damages would be admitting something which is not true, and would be as bad if not worse than the original mistake.
I'd understood it happened twice, on different programmes, and not just a second programme repeating the clip from the first. I can understand someone like Mr Trump suing, but I hope he doesn't prevail. Much better for the BBC to clean up its act.
It’ll be thrown out in Florida, as the programme was never actually broadcast in the US.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
Starmer should take a leaf out of Trump's playbook - and pardon the BBC and all involved.
He doesn't have to (not that he could), since there is no real case. It's impossible for Trump to argue damages from being accused of encouraging a group of people to do something that he regards as blameless - since he pardoned every single one of them.
And the effect of literally any comment, on the reputation of a man who tweeted what he did about the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife, is quite obviously nugatory.
Plenty of his own side called out the Rob Reiner comment, in fact almost all of them did.
One doesn’t speak ill of the dead, especially given the horrific circumstances.
I wonder if the likes of LBC and Times Radio will reputation wash Trump over this like they did thst Oxford Uni student who gloated about Charlie Kirk’s death 🤔
One is a student one is the President of the United States. Pathetic whataboutery from the Trump apologists today.
Show me one post I’ve ever made in support of Trump. I was one of the first to post about his Reiner comments and condemn them. I also contrasted it with Reiners classy comments about Kirk’s death.
The press is hypocritical and is happy to forgive those it supports. That’s my point.
Fair enough, I don't read every comment but as a stand alone comment you appear to be claiming equivalence between something a random student said and something the President of The US has said.
This should read
‘Fair enough but I’ll justify the retarded bollocks I wrote’
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
So Ed Davey has no comment to make on the actual merits of the case, he just reflexively says BBCGood and OrangeManBad.
What merits of the case could Trump possibly have? I mean Davey really doesn't have to go into analysis mode on this
He said to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”, but the BBC said that he said march to the Capitol “and fight like Hell”.
Given that there was actually a disturbance at the Capitol after the event at which he spoke, a reputable journalist might want to make sure that his words were accurately reported.
The actual quote is
I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Trump used the word fight twenty times. Is it plausible he wasn't inciting the mob?
The problem is getting the two facts to be admitted
- Trump incited the Jan 6 riot and attempted to steal the Presidency by pushing the VP to not validate the result. - The BBC fucked up in editing the speech
Bit like Alison Rose and Coutts losing a truth telling competition with Nigel Fucking Farage. As a result of which they had to make Farage rich enough to have a Coutts account again.
Wronging a Wong'un Doesn't Make A Right.
I think the BBC should fight the Trump suit, by the way.
I think the BBC has said as much itself. Senior directors have resigned, and it has apologised.
That ought to be the end of the matter, since the edit was bad journalism, not libel.
Paying damages would be admitting something which is not true, and would be as bad if not worse than the original mistake.
I'd understood it happened twice, on different programmes, and not just a second programme repeating the clip from the first. I can understand someone like Mr Trump suing, but I hope he doesn't prevail. Much better for the BBC to clean up its act.
It’ll be thrown out in Florida, as the programme was never actually broadcast in the US.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.
Ah, I'd forgotten the 'Uncle Joe' title, but I thought I'd read he was genuinely fond of children, or animals, or something very touchy-feely; which somehow made up for all the mass slaughter.
Stalin was ladykiller when young, and a complete party animal.
He graduated to killing ladies (and gents) on an epic scale. And used parties as a kind of punishment for his coterie - force people who didn’t like drinking to drink etc
I don't remember hearing about that. Maybe my recollection about the other things is quite wrong then.
Read some books on Young Stalin.
He comes across as the bandit anti-hero in a Spaghetti Western. But with a really high body count.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
Gaddafi was found of karaoke, and a fine snooker player, by all accounts.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
So Ed Davey has no comment to make on the actual merits of the case, he just reflexively says BBCGood and OrangeManBad.
What merits of the case could Trump possibly have? I mean Davey really doesn't have to go into analysis mode on this
He said to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”, but the BBC said that he said march to the Capitol “and fight like Hell”.
Given that there was actually a disturbance at the Capitol after the event at which he spoke, a reputable journalist might want to make sure that his words were accurately reported.
The actual quote is
I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Trump used the word fight twenty times. Is it plausible he wasn't inciting the mob?
The problem is getting the two facts to be admitted
- Trump incited the Jan 6 riot and attempted to steal the Presidency by pushing the VP to not validate the result. - The BBC fucked up in editing the speech
Bit like Alison Rose and Coutts losing a truth telling competition with Nigel Fucking Farage. As a result of which they had to make Farage rich enough to have a Coutts account again.
Wronging a Wong'un Doesn't Make A Right.
I think the BBC should fight the Trump suit, by the way.
I think the BBC has said as much itself. Senior directors have resigned, and it has apologised.
That ought to be the end of the matter, since the edit was bad journalism, not libel.
Paying damages would be admitting something which is not true, and would be as bad if not worse than the original mistake.
I'd understood it happened twice, on different programmes, and not just a second programme repeating the clip from the first. I can understand someone like Mr Trump suing, but I hope he doesn't prevail. Much better for the BBC to clean up its act.
The independent production company that made the programme for the BBC...
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.
Ah, I'd forgotten the 'Uncle Joe' title, but I thought I'd read he was genuinely fond of children, or animals, or something very touchy-feely; which somehow made up for all the mass slaughter.
I don't know Stalin's position on animals. However, my mother tried to learn Russian, not that successfully. The only sentence she could remember was: Ленин любил кошек. Which means: Lenin loved cats. Which is true, he did, as can be seen in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoYls9kgG_I
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.
Ah, I'd forgotten the 'Uncle Joe' title, but I thought I'd read he was genuinely fond of children, or animals, or something very touchy-feely; which somehow made up for all the mass slaughter.
Stalin was ladykiller when young, and a complete party animal.
He graduated to killing ladies (and gents) on an epic scale. And used parties as a kind of punishment for his coterie - force people who didn’t like drinking to drink etc
I was reading about some Old Bolshevik couple who were released from the camps, and restored to favour. One night, a load of vans turned up at their house, filled with security guards. They thought they were about to be executed, but it turned out to be Stalin, Beria, and other cronies, appearing with bottles of wine and fine foods, in an impromptu welcome home party. Stalin actually thought it very funny to give the pair the impression they were about to be shot.
I could imagine Stalin, laughing, "the look on your faces ..."
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.
Ah, I'd forgotten the 'Uncle Joe' title, but I thought I'd read he was genuinely fond of children, or animals, or something very touchy-feely; which somehow made up for all the mass slaughter.
Stalin was ladykiller when young, and a complete party animal.
He graduated to killing ladies (and gents) on an epic scale. And used parties as a kind of punishment for his coterie - force people who didn’t like drinking to drink etc
I don't remember hearing about that. Maybe my recollection about the other things is quite wrong then.
His pre-revolution exploits would make a pretty good film. Handsome, reckless, a criminal with a cause. I'm amazed no-ones done it.
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
Gaddafi was found of karaoke, and a fine snooker player, by all accounts.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
Starmer should take a leaf out of Trump's playbook - and pardon the BBC and all involved.
He doesn't have to (not that he could), since there is no real case. It's impossible for Trump to argue damages from being accused of encouraging a group of people to do something that he regards as blameless - since he pardoned every single one of them.
And the effect of literally any comment, on the reputation of a man who tweeted what he did about the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife, is quite obviously nugatory.
Plenty of his own side called out the Rob Reiner comment, in fact almost all of them did.
One doesn’t speak ill of the dead, especially given the horrific circumstances.
I wonder if the likes of LBC and Times Radio will reputation wash Trump over this like they did thst Oxford Uni student who gloated about Charlie Kirk’s death 🤔
One is a student one is the President of the United States. Pathetic whataboutery from the Trump apologists today.
Show me one post I’ve ever made in support of Trump. I was one of the first to post about his Reiner comments and condemn them. I also contrasted it with Reiners classy comments about Kirk’s death.
The press is hypocritical and is happy to forgive those it supports. That’s my point.
Fair enough, I don't read every comment but as a stand alone comment you appear to be claiming equivalence between something a random student said and something the President of The US has said.
This should read
‘Fair enough but I’ll justify the retarded bollocks I wrote’
Hasn't it just been suggested that Hitler had retarded bollocks?
Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:
The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…
Wasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?
Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.
Ah, I'd forgotten the 'Uncle Joe' title, but I thought I'd read he was genuinely fond of children, or animals, or something very touchy-feely; which somehow made up for all the mass slaughter.
Stalin was ladykiller when young, and a complete party animal.
He graduated to killing ladies (and gents) on an epic scale. And used parties as a kind of punishment for his coterie - force people who didn’t like drinking to drink etc
I don't remember hearing about that. Maybe my recollection about the other things is quite wrong then.
His pre-revolution exploits would make a pretty good film. Handsome, reckless, a criminal with a cause. I'm amazed no-ones done it.
Handsome, reckless, and in a relationship with a 13-year old.
Suzie has been given her detention lines that she has to type out 100x
https://x.com/SusieWiles/status/2000943061627548148 The article published early this morning is a disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history.
Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story. I assume, after reading it, that this was done to paint an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the President and our team.
The truth is the Trump White House has already accomplished more in eleven months than any other President has accomplished in eight years and that is due to the unmatched leadership and vision of President Trump, for whom I have been honored to work for the better part of a decade.
None of this will stop our relentless pursuit of Making America Great Again!
"Disingenuously framed" is good, though polysyllables run counter to the style guide.
Lol. But surely not good enough. She talks here as if the president is merely a man. A great man, yes, perhaps the greatest in all of history, but just a man.
Suzie has been given her detention lines that she has to type out 100x
https://x.com/SusieWiles/status/2000943061627548148 The article published early this morning is a disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history.
Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story. I assume, after reading it, that this was done to paint an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the President and our team.
The truth is the Trump White House has already accomplished more in eleven months than any other President has accomplished in eight years and that is due to the unmatched leadership and vision of President Trump, for whom I have been honored to work for the better part of a decade.
None of this will stop our relentless pursuit of Making America Great Again!
"Disingenuously framed" is good, though polysyllables run counter to the style guide.
Lol. But surely not good enough. She talks here as if the president is merely a man. A great man, yes, perhaps the greatest in all of history, but just a man.
She's left the comments set to on. Have a read.
“Someone keeps putting all these rakes in my walking path and I can’t seem to avoid them"
Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board has reached its discovery phase. Trump claims physical and mental anguish.The board wants all Trump physical and mental examinations, medications, and tax returns for proof.
Trump has never won a defamation lawsuit, despite launching many. And he still owes Jean Carroll millions for defaming her.
Yup - it's law fare shakedown, US style.
I recall, with some hilarity, someone trying that on the building firm I am associated with. They sued (for specious reasons) on the basis of "We'll drop the suit if you drop the price of the half completed contract". Being idiots, they hadn't bothered to read the original contract - which specified independent arbitration for disputes with legal action only after that was exhausted. So when they went to court....
Don’t all major contracts have an arbitration clause ? Certainly ours used to.
Construction contracts in the UK generally do not.
Friends of ours who run a small cleaning company were offered a contract to clean some new build buildings. 150 day payment terms.
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
Starmer should take a leaf out of Trump's playbook - and pardon the BBC and all involved.
He doesn't have to (not that he could), since there is no real case. It's impossible for Trump to argue damages from being accused of encouraging a group of people to do something that he regards as blameless - since he pardoned every single one of them.
And the effect of literally any comment, on the reputation of a man who tweeted what he did about the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife, is quite obviously nugatory.
Plenty of his own side called out the Rob Reiner comment, in fact almost all of them did.
One doesn’t speak ill of the dead, especially given the horrific circumstances.
I wonder if the likes of LBC and Times Radio will reputation wash Trump over this like they did thst Oxford Uni student who gloated about Charlie Kirk’s death 🤔
One is a student one is the President of the United States. Pathetic whataboutery from the Trump apologists today.
Show me one post I’ve ever made in support of Trump. I was one of the first to post about his Reiner comments and condemn them. I also contrasted it with Reiners classy comments about Kirk’s death.
The press is hypocritical and is happy to forgive those it supports. That’s my point.
Fair enough, I don't read every comment but as a stand alone comment you appear to be claiming equivalence between something a random student said and something the President of The US has said.
This should read
‘Fair enough but I’ll justify the retarded bollocks I wrote’
Hasn't it just been suggested that Hitler had retarded bollocks?
You know given Goebbels was totally testicular deficient his wife had six kids 🤔
Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board has reached its discovery phase. Trump claims physical and mental anguish.The board wants all Trump physical and mental examinations, medications, and tax returns for proof.
Trump has never won a defamation lawsuit, despite launching many. And he still owes Jean Carroll millions for defaming her.
Yup - it's law fare shakedown, US style.
I recall, with some hilarity, someone trying that on the building firm I am associated with. They sued (for specious reasons) on the basis of "We'll drop the suit if you drop the price of the half completed contract". Being idiots, they hadn't bothered to read the original contract - which specified independent arbitration for disputes with legal action only after that was exhausted. So when they went to court....
Don’t all major contracts have an arbitration clause ? Certainly ours used to.
Construction contracts in the UK generally do not.
Friends of ours who run a small cleaning company were offered a contract to clean some new build buildings. 150 day payment terms.
They politely declined.
When the cleaners themselves will be on 7-days terms, who’d be wanting to front five months of payments before the receipts are due?
Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board has reached its discovery phase. Trump claims physical and mental anguish.The board wants all Trump physical and mental examinations, medications, and tax returns for proof.
Trump has never won a defamation lawsuit, despite launching many. And he still owes Jean Carroll millions for defaming her.
Yup - it's law fare shakedown, US style.
I recall, with some hilarity, someone trying that on the building firm I am associated with. They sued (for specious reasons) on the basis of "We'll drop the suit if you drop the price of the half completed contract". Being idiots, they hadn't bothered to read the original contract - which specified independent arbitration for disputes with legal action only after that was exhausted. So when they went to court....
Don’t all major contracts have an arbitration clause ? Certainly ours used to.
Construction contracts in the UK generally do not.
Friends of ours who run a small cleaning company were offered a contract to clean some new build buildings. 150 day payment terms.
They politely declined.
When the cleaners themselves will be on 7-days terms, who’d be wanting to front five months of payments before the receipts are due?
Well quite. You cannot expect minimum wage cleaners to wait 5 months for their money so that a large business can make it’s P&L look better by manging its cash flow.
When I went to,JLR the agency expected me to accept 30 days EOM. Told,them I’d sooner be on the dole.
Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board has reached its discovery phase. Trump claims physical and mental anguish.The board wants all Trump physical and mental examinations, medications, and tax returns for proof.
Trump has never won a defamation lawsuit, despite launching many. And he still owes Jean Carroll millions for defaming her.
Yup - it's law fare shakedown, US style.
I recall, with some hilarity, someone trying that on the building firm I am associated with. They sued (for specious reasons) on the basis of "We'll drop the suit if you drop the price of the half completed contract". Being idiots, they hadn't bothered to read the original contract - which specified independent arbitration for disputes with legal action only after that was exhausted. So when they went to court....
Don’t all major contracts have an arbitration clause ? Certainly ours used to.
Construction contracts in the UK generally do not.
Friends of ours who run a small cleaning company were offered a contract to clean some new build buildings. 150 day payment terms.
They politely declined.
150 days is ludicrous.
It’s insane.
You’re pushing the cashflow management down to the people least able to manage it.
The large US corporation I worked for prior to retirement expected 90 days and any supplier who wouldn’t sign up to it if I wanted to use them I needed to get it approved by the site GM and finance manager otherwise ‘computer says no’
I really despised the corporate people by the time I left and wished them nothing but ill.
Suzie has been given her detention lines that she has to type out 100x
https://x.com/SusieWiles/status/2000943061627548148 The article published early this morning is a disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history.
Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story. I assume, after reading it, that this was done to paint an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the President and our team.
The truth is the Trump White House has already accomplished more in eleven months than any other President has accomplished in eight years and that is due to the unmatched leadership and vision of President Trump, for whom I have been honored to work for the better part of a decade.
None of this will stop our relentless pursuit of Making America Great Again!
"Disingenuously framed" is good, though polysyllables run counter to the style guide.
Lol. But surely not good enough. She talks here as if the president is merely a man. A great man, yes, perhaps the greatest in all of history, but just a man.
She's left the comments set to on. Have a read.
“Someone keeps putting all these rakes in my walking path and I can’t seem to avoid them"
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
Starmer should take a leaf out of Trump's playbook - and pardon the BBC and all involved.
He doesn't have to (not that he could), since there is no real case. It's impossible for Trump to argue damages from being accused of encouraging a group of people to do something that he regards as blameless - since he pardoned every single one of them.
And the effect of literally any comment, on the reputation of a man who tweeted what he did about the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife, is quite obviously nugatory.
Plenty of his own side called out the Rob Reiner comment, in fact almost all of them did.
One doesn’t speak ill of the dead, especially given the horrific circumstances.
I wonder if the likes of LBC and Times Radio will reputation wash Trump over this like they did thst Oxford Uni student who gloated about Charlie Kirk’s death 🤔
One is a student one is the President of the United States. Pathetic whataboutery from the Trump apologists today.
Show me one post I’ve ever made in support of Trump. I was one of the first to post about his Reiner comments and condemn them. I also contrasted it with Reiners classy comments about Kirk’s death.
The press is hypocritical and is happy to forgive those it supports. That’s my point.
Fair enough, I don't read every comment but as a stand alone comment you appear to be claiming equivalence between something a random student said and something the President of The US has said.
This should read
‘Fair enough but I’ll justify the retarded bollocks I wrote’
So the BBC is going to fight - fight like hell - and I'll be there with them. They should crowdfund the cost of the case. Allow people to contribute if they are so inclined. Put me down for £500. I'll give up nuts for a year. It's a no brainer.
There was some stuff from Newsmax on the BBC this morning saying both that the BBC couldn't afford to fight the case (£50m plus) versus settling (maybe £10-15m) .. and that they would be embarrassed by the discovery process.
I'm with you in saying bollocks to that. The BBC's own right to discovery is likely to be very interesting in what it might turn up. And I'm happy to help pay to defend such a transparently nonsense lawsuit.
It's important, I think. People talk a lot about "British values" and if not giving in to extortion by malevolent foreigners isn't one of them it jolly well should be. I also like the calculus of it. IMO the potential damage to Donald Trump of having this litigated in open court in the US is greater than that to the BBC.
I'm on the side of freedom of speech here, and in that case that means I'm 100% behind the BBC in this case.
US law should be on their side here too - far more than if the case was going to be heard in the libel capital of the world, London...
They should not settle, Trump has an extraordinarily high bar to pass in the US court system. And any halfway competent attorney ought to be able to defend them quite honestly.
Newsmax guy agreed that it was a weak case, but seemed to think we'd just settle on pragmatic (ie monetary) grounds, since a successful defence might still cost £50m plus. I guess someone working for Newmax places very little value on journalistic independence, so he might even have been commenting honestly.
BBC v Trump
Like Neil Hamilton v Al Fayed.
Can’t they both lose ?
However anything that undermines the license fee is all well and good.
Trump wants to interfere in our democracy and undermine our national broadcaster. We cannot let him.
Starmer should take a leaf out of Trump's playbook - and pardon the BBC and all involved.
He doesn't have to (not that he could), since there is no real case. It's impossible for Trump to argue damages from being accused of encouraging a group of people to do something that he regards as blameless - since he pardoned every single one of them.
And the effect of literally any comment, on the reputation of a man who tweeted what he did about the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife, is quite obviously nugatory.
Plenty of his own side called out the Rob Reiner comment, in fact almost all of them did.
One doesn’t speak ill of the dead, especially given the horrific circumstances.
I wonder if the likes of LBC and Times Radio will reputation wash Trump over this like they did thst Oxford Uni student who gloated about Charlie Kirk’s death 🤔
One is a student one is the President of the United States. Pathetic whataboutery from the Trump apologists today.
Show me one post I’ve ever made in support of Trump. I was one of the first to post about his Reiner comments and condemn them. I also contrasted it with Reiners classy comments about Kirk’s death.
The press is hypocritical and is happy to forgive those it supports. That’s my point.
Fair enough, I don't read every comment but as a stand alone comment you appear to be claiming equivalence between something a random student said and something the President of The US has said.
This should read
‘Fair enough but I’ll justify the retarded bollocks I wrote’
Comments
A Cypriot licence used to be the business for dumping speeding infringements because they were ridiculously simple to acquire. I've produced that to fat, baffled coppers in the UK loads of times. However, there is now some bilateral deal between Cyprus and the UK were the authorities talk to each other. Czech licences are supposed to be good, but they are no longer easy to get.
Thank you.
Alex Jones has faced over $1bn in settlements for his lies over Sandy Hook, but that's across several different trials. Again, Jones' persistent campaign against the Sandy Hook victims is many orders of magnitude greater than one bad edit, and yet Trump thinks he deserves nearly 5 times as much.
You repeatedly dismiss comments as "OrangeManBad", but you don't ever explain how the Orange Man is not bad. How is Trump selling Ukraine down the river not bad? How were his comments about the murder of Rob Reiner remotely acceptable?
Edit: also the location of a regiment has no great relation in modern MoDthink to where they are/were nominally raised.
The press is hypocritical and is happy to forgive those it supports. That’s my point.
I'm not sure if in England that extends to the possibility of a life ban, which I think I have seen reported in Scotland. The measure could be eg life ban as a presumption in such cases rebuttable by psychological and capability evidence after a court-defined period.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/part/8
There's similar law for Magistrates.
We are fortunate that he plead guilty which saved torment for witnesses.
I’m happy wankers like Jessop and Ishmael aren’t here anymore.
I thought we were cool, both similar age, west mids, engineering background, shared experiences. Both used to drink in The Plough. Sadly now shut.
I genuinely wish you well. I don’t think this place would be poorer if you returned permanently.
My quote was simply a Sweeney reference from the final episode
I recall, with some hilarity, someone trying that on the building firm I am associated with. They sued (for specious reasons) on the basis of "We'll drop the suit if you drop the price of the half completed contract". Being idiots, they hadn't bothered to read the original contract - which specified independent arbitration for disputes with legal action only after that was exhausted. So when they went to court....
They have never been good in the UK since the war, as we have no system to our maintenance, and Tom Dick or Harry can dig holes and botch the repairs.
Starmer's Govt are too timid to change this, and the Conservatives like a wild west system.
Certainly around here the road quality seems pretty poor -- the council seems to manage to do point fixes on the worst stuff but there's too much "usable but lousy" roadway that really could use a complete resurfacing.
Senior directors have resigned, and it has apologised.
That ought to be the end of the matter, since the edit was bad journalism, not libel.
Paying damages would be admitting something which is not true, and would be as bad if not worse than the original mistake.
That doesn’t mean that the BBC don’t have questions to answer over editing his words.
The other four points are just mad...
Oh dear. Arguments raged. Got the silent treatment off my wife for the rest of the day. As I’d had a drink I couldn’t drive to a B&B either.
https://x.com/SusieWiles/status/2000943061627548148
The article published early this morning is a disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history.
Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story. I assume, after reading it, that this was done to paint an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the President and our team.
The truth is the Trump White House has already accomplished more in eleven months than any other President has accomplished in eight years and that is due to the unmatched leadership and vision of President Trump, for whom I have been honored to work for the better part of a decade.
None of this will stop our relentless pursuit of Making America Great Again!
"Disingenuously framed" is good, though polysyllables run counter to the style guide.
He graduated to killing ladies (and gents) on an epic scale. And used parties as a kind of punishment for his coterie - force people who didn’t like drinking to drink etc
They politely declined.
We have to compete in ever more fevered terms in criticising him.
I was condemning him yesterday for his words on Rob Reiner and last week for his economic ineptitude.
But to some here that makes you a fan.
‘Fair enough but I’ll justify the retarded bollocks I wrote’
He comes across as the bandit anti-hero in a Spaghetti Western. But with a really high body count.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1907_Tiflis_bank_robbery
Etc etc…
https://x.com/yimbyalliance/status/2000942889300361532?s=61
I could imagine Stalin, laughing, "the look on your faces ..."
NEW THREAD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man-Made_River
Better still, 18 for £3, then you don't need to go back the next day.
“Someone keeps putting all these rakes in my walking path and I can’t seem to avoid them"
When I went to,JLR the agency expected me to accept 30 days EOM. Told,them I’d sooner be on the dole.
You’re pushing the cashflow management down to the people least able to manage it.
The large US corporation I worked for prior to retirement expected 90 days and any supplier who wouldn’t sign up to it if I wanted to use them I needed to get it approved by the site GM and finance manager otherwise ‘computer says no’
I really despised the corporate people by the time I left and wished them nothing but ill.