OK. I'm going to go out on a limb here. Humanoid robots are stupid.
We can build self driving cars. Why would we want to build a regular car and put a humanoid robot in it? What jobs would a humanoid robot be better at than something specialised for a particular task?
AI is amazing. Humanoid robots are not.
This is a very stupid take. We build humanoid robots because the world is shaped, by us humans, for human shaped things
By “world” I don’t mean darkened factories, I mean houses, shops, pavements, parks, everyday spaces. If you want a robot to help you around the house the ideal shape of the robot will be human. So it can use all tools designed for human hands, eyes, bodies
Or would you rather have some kind of ten foot laser drone zapping your dirty dishes with nuclear cyber power from 2 miles away
The humanoid robots will, however, be small humans. Like six year olds. For ease of storage and so they don’t get in the way. I predicted this on PB 3 years ago because I can EXTRAPOLATE and now, it turns out, tiny humanoid robots are exactly what’s being planned. You can thank me later. I accept cash payments
Cars are sui generis. Quite soon we will get cars with no driver seat at all. No robot no nothing. Mobile living rooms
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Doesn't that just confirm that eleven days later he was executed, gangland-style, for spitting on a window and kicking out a tail light.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
Is it? The 1911 act is precisely there to stop the Lords being undemocratic.
But that's with commitments in the government's manifesto, this not a manifesto pledge, this would be as scandalous as the prorogation crisis.
The 1911Act, a mended by the Parliament Act 1949, which reduced the Lords' delaying power to one year, makes no mention of a manifesto pledge. That's just made up.
It is scandalous that the unelected body can frustrate the will of Parliament and of the large majority of voters. And it's a small minority in that unelected body that is doing the delaying.
I'm not sure I understand the issue here. You've just said the Lords can delay (for one year), and is that not what they are doing? The Commons then has the option, if it wants, to push through their will if they think the Lords are unreasonably delaying, and they probably will.
I think the Commons has made its will clear on this issue and so will have its will be done, one way or another. But that the Lords rarely delay, and the Commons rarely needs to use the Parliament Acts, doesn't make it 'scandalous' for either body to actually use those options does it?
Why does the right of the Lords to delay things exist if they cannot use it? Why does the Commons have the right to push past the Lords if it was not sometimes going to be reasonable to do so?
This started when TSE said it was scandalous that the government was considering using the 1911 Act to push the AD bill through. On a par with the prorogation of Parliament. And i disagreed. I think TSE then went to bed.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Traditionally, when name dropping, you are expected to drop a name
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Had a strange group email at work last week from the wife of a recently retired Canadian colleague. She said he was diagnosed out the blue with cancer in Dec, treatment was going nowhere so he’d be taking his own life at a clinic the next day. Email him here with your final regards by the end of the day.
I know AD has its supporters but the transactional nature of that message was as bleak as anything I’ve ever seen.
It is admirable. And it will become the norm.
It was a remarkable day in the office, far beyond what’s normally seen when bad news of a death breaks. It dawned on me that it’s because there are such divergent views on this issue, whereas the announcement of a death tends to unify people.
Supporters of AD seemed to have little regard for the horror felt by those with most strongly felt opposition, often (but not always) correlated with religious belief. Of course I’m sure the opposite is also true.
But it was jarring to see shrugs juxtaposed with shivers, from those who saw the act as a Sin but who held deep affection and sorrow for the individual. I appreciate I am in the minority but this is not a change to our culture we should be implementing easily.
The current situation is that the well off - like most members of this board - have legal access to assisted dying, while poorer people do not.
If we genuinely oppose AD, then those who assist people flying to Switzerland need to be prosecuted, credit card companies and banks need to be prohibited from allowing Brits to send money to Dignitas and co, and there needs to be a duty to report anyone who is about to fly to Zurich.
If rules got that tight, I wouldn't put it past some people to move their permanent residence to Switzerland prior to their visit to Dignitas/any other co. How easy this is to achieve, or whether the Swiss government would allow that to happen, I've no idea
But now the can of worms and wider debate on AD has been opened, I think the prospect of bank account restrictions, and flight reporting diminishes
My general impression from the ongoing debate both down south and in Scotland, is the current movement from both politicians and the public is towards not backing the bills as things stand. Part of that is down to the wording and legal jargon being included in the bills themselves
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
I'm not an expect on parliament procedure (despite owning a copy of Erskine May), and I know the arguments why it was advanced as a private members bill, but that adding to timing concerns seems to have been the cause of a number of issues, so why can't the gov just bring it back in a new session? I feel like that 23 votes would remain fairly solid in that case, and it would mean the concerns causing the hold up (both legitimate and pretextual) can be dealt with within the next 1-2 years.
Which I'm sure would be an annoyance, but when you are introducing a landmark new right for the first time it's not a massive delay in the grand scheme of things.
The market for next Tory leader is insane. The top 6 (with Hills): Cleverley Lam - reported to be going Reform Coutinho - literally almost no-one has heard of her apart from anoraks and her mum Boris - not an MP Farage - not a Conservative Lowe - not a Conservative.
So basically Cleverly by coronation
No idea, but if Kemi carries on as she has today (see John Crace in the Guardian, who can be read fairly straight despite being very funny) it will need someone and soon.
I am not reading Crace - he is the lefts Lord Haw Haw.
But if Big G’s and HY’s posts are accurate, and Kemi actually said, taking the party more right wing day by day, there’s no place for centrists in the Conservative Party any more, and Britain is not broke, it just needs repairing, then it just doesn’t remotely sound like leadership material or heading in the right direction. She sounds like she doesn’t understand - sounds like she only reads echo chamber X not political biographies and political histories. Sounds like she is badly advised by her Generals and strategists.
The opportunity here is two fold, Reform cannot fight from the centre right like the Conservatives can, Reform is simply of the right, Reform cannot hit the heights from broad appeal, the differentials in values and policy, the Conservatives can. And Reform is populist right - Conservatism is a completely different thing, for example Populism is always wild and flaky on economics, Conservatism Strong & Stable on economics.
Kemi Badenoch and the wonks around her are stupid, pig headed, useless people.
The Tories find themselves with more potential voters available to their right than their left, unless the centre ground spontaneously abandons any LDs/Labour voters there and heads in their direction en masse. That's not happened yet, so pushing to the right looks more promising I'm sure.
It'd work, if they cut into Reform's share there, pushing the latter even further to the right, but as it is with their poll rating as high as it is it seems like Reform have a shot at grabbing remaining centre-right voters more than Tories regaining the right voters.
Is it? The 1911 act is precisely there to stop the Lords being undemocratic.
But that's with commitments in the government's manifesto, this not a manifesto pledge, this would be as scandalous as the prorogation crisis.
The 1911Act, a mended by the Parliament Act 1949, which reduced the Lords' delaying power to one year, makes no mention of a manifesto pledge. That's just made up.
It is scandalous that the unelected body can frustrate the will of Parliament and of the large majority of voters. And it's a small minority in that unelected body that is doing the delaying.
I'm not sure I understand the issue here. You've just said the Lords can delay (for one year), and is that not what they are doing? The Commons then has the option, if it wants, to push through their will if they think the Lords are unreasonably delaying, and they probably will.
I think the Commons has made its will clear on this issue and so will have its will be done, one way or another. But that the Lords rarely delay, and the Commons rarely needs to use the Parliament Acts, doesn't make it 'scandalous' for either body to actually use those options does it?
Why does the right of the Lords to delay things exist if they cannot use it? Why does the Commons have the right to push past the Lords if it was not sometimes going to be reasonable to do so?
This started when TSE said it was scandalous that the government was considering using the 1911 Act to push the AD bill through. On a par with the prorogation of Parliament. And i disagreed. I think TSE then went to bed.
I'd disagree it would be scandalous to use 1911 Act as well (whether it would be wise is another question).
But him calling it scandalous wouldn't make the Lords delaying scandalous (frustrating the will of the parliament) either, when it's a part of their role - albeit one they are expected to use wisely and very sparingly.
Those in the Lords or Commons trying to get the Lords to not delay can be firm and robust, I think it would be foolish to deny some want to block it no matter what, but they should have been more careful in essentially inventing the idea it would be wrong, in any circumstance, to cause a delay, rather than wrong in this specific instance.
And that is what they do, intentionally or otherwise, when they talk about thwarting the will etc. Since they are allowed to do that (for a time) and they all know that.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Traditionally, when name dropping, you are expected to drop a name
Like the Finland rumour ?
I still have no idea what that was. I fear I would be disappointed now.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Traditionally, when name dropping, you are expected to drop a name
Like the Finland rumour ?
I still have no idea what that was. I fear I would be disappointed now.
Pssst! Sibelius was a wrong'un. Pass it on!
Oh, hang on. That's the Finlandia rumour. Never mind.
...why can't the gov just bring it back in a new session?...
Starmer is methodical and authoritarian. He will tick the necessary boxes to achieve his goal even if the goal is bad, unwise, or counterproductive. Don't you understand: he promised Esther Rantzen!
How on earth have the supporters of assisted dying managed to mess it all up when they started off with a substantial majority?
Wrong on both counts.
It didn't have a substantial majority in the HOC. It was 23. But it was a majority. The supporters of AD haven't messed it up. It is a small minority in the unelected house that have deliberately messed it up.
You are blaming the wrong side Andy.
For what it's worth, I think the UK's Assisted Dying Bill stinks, and I would vote against it.
However, I also believe that done right it could be an entirely positive thing, enabling people to die with dignity rather than agony, and also acting as a funnel for people into mental health treatment if need be.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even of the fairly poor. It is a step forward.
That's how we ended up with a hard Brexit because many Remainers held out for a second referendum rather than supporting May's bill.
Let's not bring Brexit into it Fat lot of use the HoL were in scrutinizing let alone blocking that legislation.
There are 2 separate issues being joined together here.
1) Irrespective of your opinion on the actual legislation, the unelected chamber should not be deliberately obstructing the elected chamber. That it can, is and will on future legislation is the reason it should be abolished and replaced.
2) Assisted dying, which I'm favour of in principle, where possible people should be allowed some control of the manner and timing of their demise. Only some people would have this option. My late parent collapsed and died with undiagnosed metastatic pancreatic cancer within 48 hours, a close friend lost both parents within days of their diagnoses in 2 months and another's parent is now in a palliative ward having been diagnosed in the last few days. Of my late grandparents, 2 had longish deaths from cancer, 1 lived for years with progressive dementia, bed bound, desperate to die and the last didn't regain consciousness from a stroke. If I had Alzheimer's or another unbearably debilitating terminal illness, I would want the option to end my life under my own control, affairs sorted, farewells said and in dignity. That was the clearly expressed wish of my remaining parent, when they still had their mental faculties, instead by the end they will have spent years frightened, angry and confused with little enjoyment, no purpose or dignity.
Why should some peoples' misplaced belief in a non-existent cloud fairy and what some coercive, messianic cult leader decreed a couple of thousand years ago, deny others the right to have some control over their own death within some reasonable constraints? The denial of this right to others because of their personal beliefs is selfish and completely devoid of empathy, compassion and humanity, which, if I may be allowed to say as an atheist, isn't very "christian" of them.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
A man was killed without cause. To justify this people have searched for dirt on the man and, inevitably, has found some, just as they would for you, me, or anybody else. This is not a new technique but social media has amplified it, making it quicker and dirtier. We need to be adult enough to recognise when this is happening. It does not change the original problem.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
A man was killed without cause. To justify this people have searched for dirt on the man and, inevitably, has found some, just as they would for you, me, or anybody else. This is not a new technique but social media has amplified it, making it quicker and dirtier. We need to be adult enough to recognise when this is happening. It does not change the original problem.
That isn't remotely a tenable position. This 'dirt' isn't him stealing his neighbour's Amazon parcels or kicking a cat - irrelevant information aimed at besmirching his reputation, it's him seeking violent confrontation with agents of the law. That's relevant. It doesn't make what happened to him right, but it does give important context.
Flicking through YouTube, catching up with all the lefty Dem hopium that Trump's days are numbered, I came across a little biopic on Chelsea's Peter Houseman. I remember Houseman but his death passed me by, although I was only 15. I learn with some Googling that Houseman, his wife and another couple were killed and their children orphaned when Bartholomew Smith, the son of a Conservative MP and Bullingdon Club member smashed his Maserati at high speed in an alleged drunken state (his fifth allegation of drink driving- but expensive lawyers being worth their weight in gold, Smith was not convicted of death by drink driving) into Peter Houseman's Hillman Avenger.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Traditionally, when name dropping, you are expected to drop a name
Like the Finland rumour ?
I still have no idea what that was. I fear I would be disappointed now.
Pssst! Sibelius was a wrong'un. Pass it on!
Oh, hang on. That's the Finlandia rumour. Never mind.
The Pet Shop Boys know about it. No wait, that was the Finland station.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
A man was killed without cause. To justify this people have searched for dirt on the man and, inevitably, has found some, just as they would for you, me, or anybody else. This is not a new technique but social media has amplified it, making it quicker and dirtier. We need to be adult enough to recognise when this is happening. It does not change the original problem.
That isn't remotely a tenable position. This 'dirt' isn't him stealing his neighbour's Amazon parcels or kicking a cat - irrelevant information aimed at besmirching his reputation, it's him seeking violent confrontation with agents of the law. That's relevant. It doesn't make what happened to him right, but it does give important context.
It's information aimed at besmirching his reputation. It does not change the original problem.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Doesn't that just confirm that eleven days later he was executed, gangland-style, for spitting on a window and kicking out a tail light.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
The video was recorded on Jan. 13 and posted Wednesday by The News Movement, a digital media outlet. It shows a man, believed to be Pretti, confronting federal agents along with other protesters. The video was verified by CBS News partner BBC News, and CBS News has confirmed the footage was filmed in Minneapolis.
No, it is a mistake for peers to block the will of the Commons, to satisfy people who have democratically lost the argument.
The Lords has a simple choice to respect democracy: pass reasonable amendments that can be accepted by thr Commons while accepting the Bill and the primacy of the elected house . . . Or reject the bill and get ignored and get an unamended bill passed as the Commons asserts its own primacy.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Doesn't that just confirm that eleven days later he was executed, gangland-style, for spitting on a window and kicking out a tail light.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
Is there any evidence that video is genuine ?
According to William, BBC Verify.
My point was, despite William's conviction it justifies Pretti's slaying, it confirms the opposite.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Doesn't that just confirm that eleven days later he was executed, gangland-style, for spitting on a window and kicking out a tail light.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
Is there any evidence that video is genuine ?
According to William, BBC Verify.
My point was, despite William's conviction it justifies Pretti's slaying, it confirms the opposite.
How times have changed, I still remember when there was no political love lost between Ed Balls and George Osborne back in the day when they were frontline politicians and wingmen to Gordon Brown and David Cameron.
X George Osborne@George_Osborne
Dead chuffed Political Currency won Podcast of the Year at the Political Podcast Awards - and thrilled Ellie our producer won Producer of the Year. Thanks from @edballs and me to all our loyal listeners @polcurrency - we love making the show for you https://x.com/George_Osborne/status/2016652882213326997
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
A man was killed without cause. To justify this people have searched for dirt on the man and, inevitably, has found some, just as they would for you, me, or anybody else. This is not a new technique but social media has amplified it, making it quicker and dirtier. We need to be adult enough to recognise when this is happening. It does not change the original problem.
That isn't remotely a tenable position. This 'dirt' isn't him stealing his neighbour's Amazon parcels or kicking a cat - irrelevant information aimed at besmirching his reputation, it's him seeking violent confrontation with agents of the law. That's relevant. It doesn't make what happened to him right, but it does give important context.
How important the context would be is an open question - if he wasn't engaged in activity like that when he was killed, then it doesn't really change that much at all, since they cannot say 'we later found footage of him doing more aggressive things days earlier, and that justifies him being shot when he wasn't being aggressive'.
So unless info about the actual event sheds a different light it's new information to be sure, but not very pertinent to the fatal incident itself. Even if it was suggested it showed he was the kind of person seeking confrontation and being provocative, unless events on the day of his death show him doing that leading up the shooting, how much does it change things?
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Doesn't that just confirm that eleven days later he was executed, gangland-style, for spitting on a window and kicking out a tail light.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
The video was recorded on Jan. 13 and posted Wednesday by The News Movement, a digital media outlet. It shows a man, believed to be Pretti, confronting federal agents along with other protesters. The video was verified by CBS News partner BBC News, and CBS News has confirmed the footage was filmed in Minneapolis.
It makes no f*****' difference. He was executed eleven days later, Mafia-style, for gobbing on a car and vandalising a (no more than) $500 tail light.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Doesn't that just confirm that eleven days later he was executed, gangland-style, for spitting on a window and kicking out a tail light.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
Is there any evidence that video is genuine ?
According to William, BBC Verify.
My point was, despite William's conviction it justifies Pretti's slaying, it confirms the opposite.
I didn't say any such thing. I said he'd be alive today if he’d been arrested for it at the time.
Sorry for the name dropping but two MPs from different sides (one government/one opposition) tell me the Parliament Act shithousery won't work.
The third reading only passed by 23 votes, they'd expect a swing from the assisted dying side to the other side even before the shithousery, so it won't pass the in the Commons again.
Traditionally, when name dropping, you are expected to drop a name
Like the Finland rumour ?
I still have no idea what that was. I fear I would be disappointed now.
Pssst! Sibelius was a wrong'un. Pass it on!
Oh, hang on. That's the Finlandia rumour. Never mind.
The Pet Shop Boys know about it. No wait, that was the Finland station.
Use of the Parliament act isn't shithousery. If it gets defeated on final reading in the Commons that is fine and democratic.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Doesn't that just confirm that eleven days later he was executed, gangland-style, for spitting on a window and kicking out a tail light.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
Is there any evidence that video is genuine ?
According to William, BBC Verify.
My point was, despite William's conviction it justifies Pretti's slaying, it confirms the opposite.
I didn't say any such thing. I said he'd be alive today if he’d been arrested for it at the time.
So you are critical of ICE Agents for not charging him for misdemeanor criminal damage...
I do apologise. For a moment there I thought you were proposing a Stephen Miller defence for the execution of Pretti.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Doesn't that just confirm that eleven days later he was executed, gangland-style, for spitting on a window and kicking out a tail light.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
The video was recorded on Jan. 13 and posted Wednesday by The News Movement, a digital media outlet. It shows a man, believed to be Pretti, confronting federal agents along with other protesters. The video was verified by CBS News partner BBC News, and CBS News has confirmed the footage was filmed in Minneapolis.
That the same CBS News that just admitted it gonna join the Fox News MAGA fake news group?
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Doesn't that just confirm that eleven days later he was executed, gangland-style, for spitting on a window and kicking out a tail light.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
The video was recorded on Jan. 13 and posted Wednesday by The News Movement, a digital media outlet. It shows a man, believed to be Pretti, confronting federal agents along with other protesters. The video was verified by CBS News partner BBC News, and CBS News has confirmed the footage was filmed in Minneapolis.
I pointed out here the courses looked less than impressive....
The UK government paid PwC *£4.1 million* for the AI Skills Hub it launched today. On launch, it included courses describing the law in the wrong country, and a bunch of re-hashed 'introductions to gen AI' written by big tech. The Content: Mostly free videos from Google, AWS, and IBM that you could have found on YouTube.
Were PwC using AI to bookmark YouTube AI courses.
The government are clueless about AI, exhibit #23432. "Upskilling" 10 million people with free nonsense vids, we are lead by morons.
No idea, but if Kemi carries on as she has today (see John Crace in the Guardian, who can be read fairly straight despite being very funny) it will need someone and soon.
I am not reading Crace - he is the lefts Lord Haw Haw.
But if Big G’s and HY’s posts are accurate, and Kemi actually said, taking the party more right wing day by day, there’s no place for centrists in the Conservative Party any more, and Britain is not broke, it just needs repairing, then it just doesn’t remotely sound like leadership material or heading in the right direction. She sounds like she doesn’t understand - sounds like she only reads echo chamber X not political biographies and political histories. Sounds like she is badly advised by her Generals and strategists.
Kemi Badenoch and the wonks around her are stupid, pig headed, useless people.
The Tories find themselves with more potential voters available to their right than their left, unless the centre ground spontaneously abandons any LDs/Labour voters there and heads in their direction en masse. That's not happened yet, so pushing to the right looks more promising I'm sure.
It'd work, if they cut into Reform's share there, pushing the latter even further to the right, but as it is with their poll rating as high as it is it seems like Reform have a shot at grabbing remaining centre-right voters more than Tories regaining the right voters.
Totally disagree with your rotten analysis. Your maths is fuzzy. How can there be more potential votes on right than across centre and right combined? Your understanding of UK politics is fuzzy. How can anyone win from the right, if not enough votes on the right alone even if you owned every single one of them? Your understanding of political history fuzzy. The Conservative Party has never been a right of centre party, always centre right party, Its values, its credibility, the only success it has ever had, as a centre right party. Your understanding of current strategy fuzzy. Reform attack 21stC government record of Conservative Party as betrayal of promises, especially immigration - how does photocopying reform policies to be an identikit but for the difficult record as well, prize voters away? Your understanding of important difference between Pupulism and Conservatism is nonexistent. differentials from rivals vital in politics and difference between populism and conservatism is Conservative Parties trump card. A Conservative Party can take a Conservative approach to issues and solutions, that a Populist Party of right or left cannot. All Reform offer are glib answers to complex nuanced problems, Reform policy built only for short-term political gain never long-term providing stability, and economic damage in every change Reform promote, and erosion of democratic norms and checks and balances too. But a Conservative approach is the opposite, stability and caution in change, opposed to sweeping radical change, a conservative approach is practical, applying fixes to problems incrementally. In fact Conservatives are instinctively skeptical of need for change, believing unwarranted reform create more problems than they solve! Conservatives argue because no one person or group knows absolute truth, it is dangerous to rebuild society based on single ideology. The Conservative Party was until Badenoch, all about this pluralist view - Lady Thatcher sitting with wets in her cabinets. Contrast with Farage and Reform isn’t run as a Democratic Party, it’s clearly demonstrated it doesn’t manage democratic debate and compromise. Populism pushes the idea of popular sovereignty above independence of democratic institutions and professionalism of the representatives of those institutions - Conservatism is standard bearer for those democratic institutions, and professionalism of the representatives, thru believing society as a living organic entity that evolves slowly. Populism like Trump and Farage is opportunism masquerading as values and agenda for government, a crusading ideology pretending to be voice of the people, undemocratically deaf to anyone with a different view. Conservatism is never a crusading ideology, always the pragmatic cautious approach to change, with a listen for everyone.
Comments
By “world” I don’t mean darkened factories, I mean houses, shops, pavements, parks, everyday spaces. If you want a robot to help you around the house the ideal shape of the robot will be human. So it can use all
tools designed for human hands, eyes, bodies
Or would you rather have some kind of ten foot laser drone zapping your dirty dishes with nuclear cyber power from 2 miles away
The humanoid robots will, however, be small humans. Like six year olds. For ease of storage and so they don’t get in the way. I predicted this on PB 3 years ago because I can EXTRAPOLATE and now, it turns out, tiny humanoid robots are exactly what’s being planned. You can thank me later. I accept cash payments
Cars are sui generis. Quite soon we will get cars with no driver seat at all. No robot no nothing. Mobile living rooms
But now the can of worms and wider debate on AD has been opened, I think the prospect of bank account restrictions, and flight reporting diminishes
My general impression from the ongoing debate both down south and in Scotland, is the current movement from both politicians and the public is towards not backing the bills as things stand. Part of that is down to the wording and legal jargon being included in the bills themselves
Which I'm sure would be an annoyance, but when you are introducing a landmark new right for the first time it's not a massive delay in the grand scheme of things.
It'd work, if they cut into Reform's share there, pushing the latter even further to the right, but as it is with their poll rating as high as it is it seems like Reform have a shot at grabbing remaining centre-right voters more than Tories regaining the right voters.
But him calling it scandalous wouldn't make the Lords delaying scandalous (frustrating the will of the parliament) either, when it's a part of their role - albeit one they are expected to use wisely and very sparingly.
Those in the Lords or Commons trying to get the Lords to not delay can be firm and robust, I think it would be foolish to deny some want to block it no matter what, but they should have been more careful in essentially inventing the idea it would be wrong, in any circumstance, to cause a delay, rather than wrong in this specific instance.
And that is what they do, intentionally or otherwise, when they talk about thwarting the will etc. Since they are allowed to do that (for a time) and they all know that.
Oh, hang on. That's the Finlandia rumour. Never mind.
There are 2 separate issues being joined together here.
1) Irrespective of your opinion on the actual legislation, the unelected chamber should not be deliberately obstructing the elected chamber. That it can, is and will on future legislation is the reason it should be abolished and replaced.
2) Assisted dying, which I'm favour of in principle, where possible people should be allowed some control of the manner and timing of their demise. Only some people would have this option.
My late parent collapsed and died with undiagnosed metastatic pancreatic cancer within 48 hours, a close friend lost both parents within days of their diagnoses in 2 months and another's parent is now in a palliative ward having been diagnosed in the last few days. Of my late grandparents, 2 had longish deaths from cancer, 1 lived for years with progressive dementia, bed bound, desperate to die and the last didn't regain consciousness from a stroke.
If I had Alzheimer's or another unbearably debilitating terminal illness, I would want the option to end my life under my own control, affairs sorted, farewells said and in dignity. That was the clearly expressed wish of my remaining parent, when they still had their mental faculties, instead by the end they will have spent years frightened, angry and confused with little enjoyment, no purpose or dignity.
Why should some peoples' misplaced belief in a non-existent cloud fairy and what some coercive, messianic cult leader decreed a couple of thousand years ago, deny others the right to have some control over their own death within some reasonable constraints?
The denial of this right to others because of their personal beliefs is selfish and completely devoid of empathy, compassion and humanity, which, if I may be allowed to say as an atheist, isn't very "christian" of them.
https://www.cherwell.org/2022/04/26/there-aint-no-party-like-a-conservative-party-oxford-the-tories-and-the-preparation-for-life-without-consequences/
When two celebrity worlds collide literally.
No wait, that was the Finland station.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/video-alex-pretti-scuffle-federal-agents-minneapolis-11-days-before-his-death/
The video was recorded on Jan. 13 and posted Wednesday by The News Movement, a digital media outlet. It shows a man, believed to be Pretti, confronting federal agents along with other protesters. The video was verified by CBS News partner BBC News, and CBS News has confirmed the footage was filmed in Minneapolis.
The Lords has a simple choice to respect democracy: pass reasonable amendments that can be accepted by thr Commons while accepting the Bill and the primacy of the elected house . . . Or reject the bill and get ignored and get an unamended bill passed as the Commons asserts its own primacy.
My point was, despite William's conviction it justifies Pretti's slaying, it confirms the opposite.
X
George Osborne@George_Osborne
Dead chuffed Political Currency won Podcast of the Year at the Political Podcast Awards - and thrilled Ellie our producer won Producer of the Year. Thanks from @edballs
and me to all our loyal listeners @polcurrency
- we love making the show for you
https://x.com/George_Osborne/status/2016652882213326997
So unless info about the actual event sheds a different light it's new information to be sure, but not very pertinent to the fatal incident itself. Even if it was suggested it showed he was the kind of person seeking confrontation and being provocative, unless events on the day of his death show him doing that leading up the shooting, how much does it change things?
If it gets defeated on final reading in the Commons that is fine and democratic.
I do apologise. For a moment there I thought you were proposing a Stephen Miller defence for the execution of Pretti.
Stand down.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Karma is being created.
The UK government paid PwC *£4.1 million* for the AI Skills Hub it launched today. On launch, it included courses describing the law in the wrong country, and a bunch of re-hashed 'introductions to gen AI' written by big tech. The Content: Mostly free videos from Google, AWS, and IBM that you could have found on YouTube.
Were PwC using AI to bookmark YouTube AI courses.
The government are clueless about AI, exhibit #23432. "Upskilling" 10 million people with free nonsense vids, we are lead by morons.
Your maths is fuzzy. How can there be more potential votes on right than across centre and right combined? Your understanding of UK politics is fuzzy. How can anyone win from the right, if not enough votes on the right alone even if you owned every single one of them?
Your understanding of political history fuzzy. The Conservative Party has never been a right of centre party, always centre right party, Its values, its credibility, the only success it has ever had, as a centre right party.
Your understanding of current strategy fuzzy. Reform attack 21stC government record of Conservative Party as betrayal of promises, especially immigration - how does photocopying reform policies to be an identikit but for the difficult record as well, prize voters away?
Your understanding of important difference between Pupulism and Conservatism is nonexistent. differentials from rivals vital in politics and difference between populism and conservatism is Conservative Parties trump card. A Conservative Party can take a Conservative approach to issues and solutions, that a Populist Party of right or left cannot. All Reform offer are glib answers to complex nuanced problems, Reform policy built only for short-term political gain never long-term providing stability, and economic damage in every change Reform promote, and erosion of democratic norms and checks and balances too. But a Conservative approach is the opposite, stability and caution in change, opposed to sweeping radical change, a conservative approach is practical, applying fixes to problems incrementally. In fact Conservatives are instinctively skeptical of need for change, believing unwarranted reform create more problems than they solve! Conservatives argue because no one person or group knows absolute truth, it is dangerous to rebuild society based on single ideology. The Conservative Party was until Badenoch, all about this pluralist view - Lady Thatcher sitting with wets in her cabinets. Contrast with Farage and Reform isn’t run as a Democratic Party, it’s clearly demonstrated it doesn’t manage democratic debate and compromise. Populism pushes the idea of popular sovereignty above independence of democratic institutions and professionalism of the representatives of those institutions - Conservatism is standard bearer for those democratic institutions, and professionalism of the representatives, thru believing society as a living organic entity that evolves slowly. Populism like Trump and Farage is opportunism masquerading as values and agenda for government, a crusading ideology pretending to be voice of the people, undemocratically deaf to anyone with a different view. Conservatism is never a crusading ideology, always the pragmatic cautious approach to change, with a listen for everyone.