I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
The associated problem is that when house prices stop rising, builders stop building. There is a very close correlation between the two.
And that surely pushes the building cost up; everything is cheaper and easier to do as a continuous process rather than stop-start.
And from that, I suspect it follows that the state needs to act, at the very least, as a housebuyer of last resort, and probably as a proactive comissioner of housebuilding. I'm not sure the prospect fills me with joy, but the market failure feels impossible to unclog otherwise.
It would certainly help if the State were to introduce a new social housing/council house drive which would help maintain building flows.
I actually thought the council house sell offs as originally envisaged, with money going back into building more council houses, was a good idea. People do like owning their own home. But it failed in not reinvesting in the housing stock. Something we ought to rectify now.
When was it envisaged that the money would be used to build more council houses? As I understand it the policy was introduced by the Conservatives with the goal of reducing the share of council houses in the overall housing stock, as part of their general policy of shrinking the state's role in the economy. Councils were therefore barred from using the receipts to build new homes from the start, as a matter of policy and ideology. I may be wrong though. I'd be fascinated if the original idea was different and to know when that changed.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
So still not convicted of anything then?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.
Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.
There’s no evidence that this is the case.
My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.
Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.
The jury was asked the question and gave their answer.
The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
That's dishonest, Sandpit. The jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted her; the judge said that finding - forcible manual penetration without consent - meets the common definition of rape, which is true.
A federal judge NULLIFIES the purported “settlement” behind Trump’s $1.776B slush fund, finding there was never a “case or controversy” — and referring his attorney for possible professional discipline.
Judge Williams also directs the clerk to send a copy of her order to where bar complaints against Todd Blanche and Stanley Woodward were filed — in New York and D.C., respectively.
I have noted similar in my Town - new house with tiny windows. What is going on? Triple glazing (even modern double glazing) is pretty good nowaways for insulation purposes. Doing the walls and roof etc to high spec helps. Its crazy.
Perhaps it's a bit like the printers where they add a chip to the cheaper printer to disable some of the functions so that they can charge more for the other printer.
Making the "affordable" homes look like prison blocks helps to sell the other homes for ludicrous sums of money. This is one reason why the government should commission house-building directly, so that it can specify high space, light and insulation standards.
It could in theory specify those things without doing the commissioning.
I don't understand why we build bad houses. Could we not build nice houses and allow the not so nice houses to become cheaper before eventually replacing them?
It's just one of the symptoms of Britain's housing crisis. Any old shit houses will sell, because people are desperate. So the builders build shit houses.
And people who already have houses don't wan't the "value" of their house to be lower.
Even if we know that this is bad for us, we keep doing it.
The associated problem is that when house prices stop rising, builders stop building. There is a very close correlation between the two.
And that surely pushes the building cost up; everything is cheaper and easier to do as a continuous process rather than stop-start.
And from that, I suspect it follows that the state needs to act, at the very least, as a housebuyer of last resort, and probably as a proactive comissioner of housebuilding. I'm not sure the prospect fills me with joy, but the market failure feels impossible to unclog otherwise.
It would certainly help if the State were to introduce a new social housing/council house drive which would help maintain building flows.
I actually thought the council house sell offs as originally envisaged, with money going back into building more council houses, was a good idea. People do like owning their own home. But it failed in not reinvesting in the housing stock. Something we ought to rectify now.
When was it envisaged that the money would be used to build more council houses? As I understand it the policy was introduced by the Conservatives with the goal of reducing the share of council houses in the overall housing stock, as part of their general policy of shrinking the state's role in the economy. Councils were therefore barred from using the receipts to build new homes from the start, as a matter of policy and ideology. I may be wrong though. I'd be fascinated if the original idea was different and to know when that changed.
Count Binface certainly appeals to the sort of people who still think Have I Got News for You is cutting edge.
Personally I think he’s as funny as a vegetable that’s grown into a rude and amusing shape
I think he's funny enough for a joke candidate - has some wit, and safely uncontroversial - but that relies on having it in small doses, from campaign to campaign. I appreciate him as the best joke candidate in decades because he puts in quite a bit of effort, rather than being side splitting.
I think he'll get 5-10%, which would be a tremendous result for a joke candidate. Even most people who appreciate the gag won't vote, but there may be enough who really hate Farage to see him save his deposit and even get beyond that.
A federal judge NULLIFIES the purported “settlement” behind Trump’s $1.776B slush fund, finding there was never a “case or controversy” — and referring his attorney for possible professional discipline.
Judge Williams also directs the clerk to send a copy of her order to where bar complaints against Todd Blanche and Stanley Woodward were filed — in New York and D.C., respectively.
Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.
US markets open in only a few hours.
We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.
Trump is pathetic.
So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.
And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.
I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
Don’t be sympathetic to them!
So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though. TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.
Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.
But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.
Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.
There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.
Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?
More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.
But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
You said “He’s a rapist”
The jury said “No”.
I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.
That doesn’t make him a rapist.
The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?
I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
Multiple women?
he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
So still not convicted of anything then?
Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?
If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.
The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.
Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.
There’s no evidence that this is the case.
My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.
Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.
The jury was asked the question and gave their answer.
The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
That's dishonest, Sandpit. The jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted her; the judge said that finding - forcible manual penetration without consent - meets the common definition of rape, which is true.
What Trump really hates is that she couldn't tell if she was penetrated by a finger or his todger. I mean, that's got to hurt his feelings....
Its got like this many reasons, not least too many wankers with axes to grind and a police force too wedded to trying to police social media that rather than just tell people to go away, they take it seriously, adding fire to the flames.
And in the end it can be rather costly - "Graham Linehan receives settlement from Met over online post arrest"
Whatever the rights and wrongs of being rude about people online, was it really appropriate of the met to use armed officers to arrest Linehan? Well 25 grand and an apology says not.
A point of information.
Graham Linehan lives in the US and was arrested on entering the UK at Heathrow, where police are routinely armed. The police did not tool up just to arrest Linehan.
This is the tweet in question:
"If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
It's interesting, isn't it? Suggest burning down an asylum seeker hotel and you receive a 31 month sentence. Suggest "punching" someone "in the balls" to your 600k+ followers - which is counselling or even procuring a serious bodily assault on someone - and you get 25 grand no questions asked.
Two tier justice indeed.
Point of information. Where did I suggest that the police 'tooled up' to arrest him? Was he or was he not arrested by armed officers?
Yet more proof that sarcasm, and humour, do not translate well on the internet. Do you understand the joke and the point he was making? I don't expect you to laugh, or think it funny, but the point was two-fold. Men presenting as women (and specifcally the ones who post about using womens toilets as if they've won the world cup almost always (a) retain their testicles and (b) are taller than the average woman, hence the testicles being the target.
Do you genuinely believe he was inciting people to physical assault?
I have enjoyed much of Linehan's comedic writing in the past. That tweet, while perhaps worded in what was meant to be a funny way, appears to be a sincere recommendation of how to behave in a certain situation. Ergo, yes, he was inciting people to physical assault (albeit arguably only in a circumstance where that would be legal). It was not written as a joke.
It was a joke. There is no doubt that Linehan is very far on the fringes of gender critical. He does play to his audience too.
But do you really believe that he should have been arrested by armed police for posting what he did (a) as someone who lives in the USA and (b) when he was already going to a known location (i.e. the trial)?
The courts have already concluded, AIUI, that he should not have been arrested. I am not arguing their decision. I was answering your question as to whether he was inciting assault. It still looks like that to me. I don't think IWAJ is that persuasive.
Do you recall the Nottingham airport bomb tweet? Do you think that was a joke or not?
Yes, that looked like a joke to me.
So comedy suffers when its deconstructed. But lets try.
The tweet - "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls."
If he had written "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the face." - I would have agreed with you. The reason I don't in this case is the gear shift, the change of angle.
Punch him in the balls is trying, perhaps failing, perhaps its weak, to make a joke referencing the typical height differential between the average woman and the average man who believes they are a woman.
But even if you consider it to be incitement to violence, consider the situation posed. If you had a daughter might you not give the same advice if they felt threatened? Which is the scenario presented.
And on the basis of complaints from a frequent flyer with links to the police, Linehan was arrested by armed police, something the met no agrees was wrong.
I am not personally persuaded by your argument. It's not funny, for starters! Punching someone in the balls is sensible advice. If you need to defend yourself, it is recommended to punch someone in the balls over punching them in the face. If there is no incongruity in the advice, how is it funny? The set up is one of advice: if in this situation, do X. The set up demonstrates a particular view of transwomen (that their mere presence is a "violent, abusive act"). The set up does not suggest he's going for a joke. Knowing Linehan's expressed views, it would seem worth taking his words at face value here.
In the Nottingham airport case, it's funny because it's an unserious exaggeration. This doesn't look unserious. This looks like the sort of serious comment Linehan makes.
It still looks to me that Linehan is advising people on what to do in a particular circumstance, and that advice is to commit an assault.
As I said, I was answering your specific question: was it inciting assault? If I had a daughter and she felt threatened, I would advise her to run away and avoid confrontation. But, yes, if cornered and under threat, absolutely, punch a guy in the balls is wise advice. It is OK to advise assault if the assault would be legal. One could dispute the details of the scenario Linehan describes. As I said, the authorities acknowledge it was wrong to arrest Linehan in that matter, and I am not questioning that decision.
Without dragging this out, I don't think everyone finds the same jokes funny. I detest 'Mrs Brown's Boys' for instance, but someone must like it as it keeps getting re-commisioned.
I see we're having trouble with humour today. Let me help.
"A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says, why the long face?" = A joke which, like Mrs Browns Boys, you may or may not find funny.
"A trans woman merely minding her own business is committing a violent act because I say so. If you see one, punch them in the balls (which they may not have, since many will be post op)" = Not a joke. A direct incitement to others to commit assault.
Comments
The jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted her; the judge said that finding - forcible manual penetration without consent - meets the common definition of rape, which is true.
A federal judge NULLIFIES the purported “settlement” behind Trump’s $1.776B slush fund, finding there was never a “case or controversy” — and referring his attorney for possible professional discipline.
Judge Williams also directs the clerk to send a copy of her order to where bar complaints against Todd Blanche and Stanley Woodward were filed — in New York and D.C., respectively.
https://bsky.app/profile/klasfeldreports.com/post/3mqk2aiwchk2m
I think he'll get 5-10%, which would be a tremendous result for a joke candidate. Even most people who appreciate the gag won't vote, but there may be enough who really hate Farage to see him save his deposit and even get beyond that.
"A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says, why the long face?" = A joke which, like Mrs Browns Boys, you may or may not find funny.
"A trans woman merely minding her own business is committing a violent act because I say so. If you see one, punch them in the balls (which they may not have, since many will be post op)" = Not a joke. A direct incitement to others to commit assault.
You = A joke.
Hope this clarifies things for you.