I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
Go see it in IMAX.
One person behind me at the end said ‘thank God that’s over.’
Philistines are still around.
At the end Odysseus also said ‘thank God that’s over.’
I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
Go see it in IMAX.
One person behind me at the end said ‘thank God that’s over.’
Philistines are still around.
At the end Odysseus also said ‘thank God that’s over.’
I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
Go see it in IMAX.
One person behind me at the end said ‘thank God that’s over.’
Philistines are still around.
Were any Philistines actually named Phil?
“Nolan takes a different psychological turn for the very end of the film. Rather than reclaiming his throne, a gravely wounded Odysseus abdicates his power to his son and sails away into exile… at which point he realises he’s Mr Benn - and suddenly he’s back in a Gentleman’s Tailors…”
At least Philistines are wary of geeks baring their gifts.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
Drink a lot less alcohol too.
Having picked my 16 year old daughter up from a party last night, I'm happy to relate that reports of the youth going all abstemious are perhaps a tad overstated.
No abstemiousness in our household either. My 17yo son got in at 2 last night, and my 19yo daughter at 3. The latter appears to be very hungover today.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
Drink a lot less alcohol too.
Having picked my 16 year old daughter up from a party last night, I'm happy to relate that reports of the youth going all abstemious are perhaps a tad overstated.
No abstemiousness in our household either. My 17yo son got in at 2 last night, and my 19yo daughter at 3. The latter appears to be very hungover today.
Burnham seems to have the same level of cockiness that his hero Kinnock had in dismissing Blair and brown along with thatcher . At least Blair and thatcher won multiple elections to be pm .
My Google feed is 70% Daily Telegraph. 70% of my feeds are telling me Burnham is a terrible Prime Minister. Statistics don't lie.
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Just remember: no-one has voted for his bullshit.
I thought you would be in favour of the King we haven't voted for even if he did the dirty on Diana
Burnham shagged Diana?
Quick: get onto the Sun. You'll make a killing with that story.
Necrophilia is illegal I think
She's been embalmed so it might be legal. The aristocracy operate to a different set of rules to the rest of us anyway.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
“ Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?”
I understand where you say UK can help balance of payments a bit with some tax revenue, but can you explain “UK Profits?” I’ve understood till now there’s nothing under the North Sea UK owns.
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Just remember: no-one has voted for his bullshit.
I thought you would be in favour of the King we haven't voted for even if he did the dirty on Diana
Burnham shagged Diana?
Quick: get onto the Sun. You'll make a killing with that story.
Necrophilia is illegal I think
She's been embalmed so it might be legal. The aristocracy operate to a different set of rules to the rest of us anyway.
Why is burnham seemingly yearning for the 1970s ? . A very strange speech
Is this the TUC speech yesterday? If so, his audience on the day are still living their glory year of 1978.
I have plenty of complaints about Burnham, but playing to each audience like Johnson did is politically astute, certainly when Starmer was so incredibly poor at addressing his audiences.
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Just remember: no-one has voted for his bullshit.
I thought you would be in favour of the King we haven't voted for even if he did the dirty on Diana
Burnham shagged Diana?
Quick: get onto the Sun. You'll make a killing with that story.
Necrophilia is illegal I think
She's been embalmed so it might be legal. The aristocracy operate to a different set of rules to the rest of us anyway.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
I am not a big one for tagging, but perhaps @Mexicanpete could actually answer this one - especially considering it is not just Norwegian imports that the extra from the North Sea will displace, but Saudi, Qatari and US imports - and fecking Russian imports via India, that need to be liquified down and sent halfway across the world, with the requisite emissions?
Why is it so important to you that you actively prefer MORE emissions, just for the sake of making a twunt out of our country?
That same question can go to the rest of you too. Especially the ones who whine on and on about Norway's 'sovereign wealth fund' - how do you propose we get a sovereign wealth fund without generating some sovereign wealth?
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
Ultimately, if we are to avert the most extreme effects of global warming, most of the remaining fossil fuels need to stay under the ground. If it were the case that extracting more from below the North Sea meant that less would be extracted elsewhere then, yes, it would make environmental sense to continue to exploit the North Sea. But we all know that that is not the case. It just means the world as a whole continues to burn more gas and oil.
So yes, drilling in the North Sea will go some small way towards improving our balance of payments, but it is delusional to claim as some do that it has no downside for the environment.
Arguably it was astute* to exhaust UK Oil and Gas at the point of energy transition to electricity. This licence is irrelevant to UK energy policy, and even more so to climate change policy. But there are countries where policy changes have impacts, eg Canada which is now allowing new pipelines. Carney's argument seems to be let's have the pipelines but hope the energy transition makes them redundant. Which feels inconsistent.
🔥 Russia’s “deep rear” logistics just got absolutely smoked by Ukrainian long-range strikes — Moscow & Tambov regions, drone component factories, and an oil facility turned into parking lots. Sea of Azov & Crimea got the mid-range special too.
For some it might still be a bit raw for such satire, but it does show that Tuchel has zero credit left in the tank now, so it’s better for all parties if he just moved on.
How the history of this will be written up, Englands failure to get into the final and win it will be defined - just as the comedy piece you posted - by who Tuchel didn’t take, and who he did take. And also the failure in the semi was 100% Tuchel’s mistake and even cowardice. However, in my opinion and that of my dad, when Argentina knuckled down to focus and show composure, they actually played top quality football, and that played a big part in our loss.
No one tipped England for the win before the tournament, media experts thought QF would be about it. What actually happened was semi finals was thanks to Jude Bellingham - if Jude broke his foot a week before the first game, topping the group and getting through last 32 and last 16 were not sure to have happened.
Apart from 90% of the games played during my sleep time, I thought it was fun though.
The Burnham prime minstership look likely to be a white elephant. He has been enthroned because any other possibility was unthinkable. He won't win anything with rhetoric blaming everyone else. It says a lot about Labour that he has become PM in the first place.
For some it might still be a bit raw for such satire, but it does show that Tuchel has zero credit left in the tank now, so it’s better for all parties if he just moved on.
How the history of this will be written up, Englands failure to get into the final and win it will be defined - just as the comedy piece you posted - by who Tuchel didn’t take, and who he did take. And also the failure in the semi was 100% Tuchel’s mistake and even cowardice. However, in my opinion and that of my dad, when Argentina knuckled down to focus and show composure, they actually played top quality football, and that played a big part in our loss.
No one tipped England for the win before the tournament, media experts thought QF would be about it. What actually happened was semi finals was thanks to Jude Bellingham - if Jude broke his foot a week before the first game, topping the group and getting through last 32 and last 16 were not sure to have happened.
Apart from 90% of the games played during my sleep time, I thought it was fun though.
@Brixian59 and I said before the tournament Saint Jude was the standout English player.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
Drink a lot less alcohol too.
Having picked my 16 year old daughter up from a party last night, I'm happy to relate that reports of the youth going all abstemious are perhaps a tad overstated.
No abstemiousness in our household either. My 17yo son got in at 2 last night, and my 19yo daughter at 3. The latter appears to be very hungover today.
I think abstemious is one of only 2 words with all the vowels in the correct order.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
Drink a lot less alcohol too.
Having picked my 16 year old daughter up from a party last night, I'm happy to relate that reports of the youth going all abstemious are perhaps a tad overstated.
No abstemiousness in our household either. My 17yo son got in at 2 last night, and my 19yo daughter at 3. The latter appears to be very hungover today.
I think abstemious is one of only 2 words with all the vowels in the correct order.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Why is burnham seemingly yearning for the 1970s ? . A very strange speech
I have a yearning that (IMHO, the superb) Timothy Dalton made more than two Bond films, but we can't always have what we want.
Dalton's first outing was superb. Maryam D'Abo may have helped somewhat. I wasn't so keen on the second, the one with the wheelie -pulling Kenworths.
Try it again.
Licence to Kill is an excellent thriller.
I have seen it loads of times. The Living Daylights on the other hand is certainly in my top 5.
I like that.
I watched Licence to Kill again last night.
It is very dark, but Dalton's acting is superb and the chemistry between him and Robert Davi possible the best in the whole series.
I really enjoyed it.
Both Dalton's films are good. Both have flaws. The Living Daylights loses its way plotwise in the third act, when there's no threat anymore. Licence to Kill has a lot going for it but it has a little bit of a made for TV feel. Bond films always reflect culture and this was maybe influenced by the TV of the time?
Goldfinger for me. Solid imaginative plot. Great villain and sidekick. Peak physical Connery. A golf scene. Our macho protagonist in that ridiculous short blue onesy by the pool.
And this memorable scene:
Bond wakes up tied to a chair and is faced by Honor Blackman gazing down at him. There's no fear only amused curiosity. His eyes glint and he drawls a single word.
Why is burnham seemingly yearning for the 1970s ? . A very strange speech
I have a yearning that (IMHO, the superb) Timothy Dalton made more than two Bond films, but we can't always have what we want.
Dalton's first outing was superb. Maryam D'Abo may have helped somewhat. I wasn't so keen on the second, the one with the wheelie -pulling Kenworths.
Try it again.
Licence to Kill is an excellent thriller.
I have seen it loads of times. The Living Daylights on the other hand is certainly in my top 5.
I like that.
I watched Licence to Kill again last night.
It is very dark, but Dalton's acting is superb and the chemistry between him and Robert Davi possible the best in the whole series.
I really enjoyed it.
Both Dalton's films are good. Both have flaws. The Living Daylights loses its way plotwise in the third act, when there's no threat anymore. Licence to Kill has a lot going for it but it has a little bit of a made for TV feel. Bond films always reflect culture and this was maybe influenced by the TV of the time?
I never feel like the The Living Daylights loses anything, because it has the background of the Afghanistan War and menacing villians like Necros. Whittaker becomes dangerous at the end too.
Sure, both films are about drugs - not blowing up the whole world - but Bond films don't have to be pastiches of themselves to be great thrillers, sometimes it's great to just bring a megalomaniac arsehole down.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
I am not a big one for tagging, but perhaps @Mexicanpete could actually answer this one - especially considering it is not just Norwegian imports that the extra from the North Sea will displace, but Saudi, Qatari and US imports - and fecking Russian imports via India, that need to be liquified down and sent halfway across the world, with the requisite emissions?
Why is it so important to you that you actively prefer MORE emissions, just for the sake of making a twunt out of our country?
That same question can go to the rest of you too. Especially the ones who whine on and on about Norway's 'sovereign wealth fund' - how do you propose we get a sovereign wealth fund without generating some sovereign wealth?
I’ll have a go, Lucky. I can give you answers that are likely true, though neither of us - being Thatcherite’s - will like the sound of all the answers.
First of all, UK does have a sovereign wealth fund. It’s just a bit naff compared to Norways and the Saudi’s. So to be able to do anything about that now, we get in a Time Machine, lock Lady Thatcher in a wardrobe so Jim Callaghan wins in 1979, ensure Tony Benns Labour Leadership 1980 coup, for a decade of socialism, that doesn’t sell off the North Sea instead copies Norway by setting up a 70% government owned company for extracting the gas and oil with most the profits go in a sovereign wealth fund - I understand it as a big hedge fund thing that sustains itself with investments all over the world. Thatcherism didn’t get everything right. Sovereign wealth fund would have been better than sell off the oil and gas. That is saying it in hindsight though, as knowing afterwards many investors carpet bagged the sell offs, and mass share ownership and benefiting from dividends didn’t really happen on popular capitalism critical mass as hoped.
The Green Party noisy today about rumours of more North Sea drilling under Labour devastating the earths climate - but note the UK Net Zero target was not created and honed by Red Ed or Green Party and other climate Zealots, but by the Conservative Party. Created on the basis the choice isn’t fossil or green, the only right answer is both. It comes down to a question of pace of conversion, how much hair shirt to wear is the only argument here, because all nations of the world should be working on conversion from fossil fuels to green - even Trumps America - because the impact and injury from climate change, rising sea levels and population are not just global, but very localised at home too. And if you want to change the world you set it an example and give leadership - and it’s working brilliantly because dozens of countries contacted UK for the wording to make into their own laws and identical long term planning committees with businesses. Massive success story for the Conservatives from their 13 years in power.
Let’s do this the Yorkshire way Lucky, cut to the bottom line. The reason I am on board is - in the bigger picture, the long run in contrast where politics is so short termist focus on the next voting day - I fully believe fighting climate change now will be cheaper costs than not fighting it in the long run. Much much cheaper. So I am on board for it being not a climate argument, but an economic one. Whilst you are not on board for this reason?
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
Ultimately, if we are to avert the most extreme effects of global warming, most of the remaining fossil fuels need to stay under the ground. If it were the case that extracting more from below the North Sea meant that less would be extracted elsewhere then, yes, it would make environmental sense to continue to exploit the North Sea. But we all know that that is not the case. It just means the world as a whole continues to burn more gas and oil.
So yes, drilling in the North Sea will go some small way towards improving our balance of payments, but it is delusional to claim as some do that it has no downside for the environment.
This is dumb and utterly illogical. Extracting from the North Sea rather than Norway or the Middle East has no impact at all on consumption. Oil and gas are not a resource whose useage is currently limited by supply. So yes, in some small way extracting more from the North Sea will be balanced by buying less from overseas. Nor is it just balance of payments. It is actual cost to consumer. We spend £3 billion a year in tariffs and transport costs just on gas from Norway and the USA. That is money paid by consumers. Money we will not have to spend if we are using North Sea oil and gas.
Why is burnham seemingly yearning for the 1970s ? . A very strange speech
I have a yearning that (IMHO, the superb) Timothy Dalton made more than two Bond films, but we can't always have what we want.
Dalton's first outing was superb. Maryam D'Abo may have helped somewhat. I wasn't so keen on the second, the one with the wheelie -pulling Kenworths.
Try it again.
Licence to Kill is an excellent thriller.
I have seen it loads of times. The Living Daylights on the other hand is certainly in my top 5.
I like that.
I watched Licence to Kill again last night.
It is very dark, but Dalton's acting is superb and the chemistry between him and Robert Davi possible the best in the whole series.
I really enjoyed it.
Both Dalton's films are good. Both have flaws. The Living Daylights loses its way plotwise in the third act, when there's no threat anymore. Licence to Kill has a lot going for it but it has a little bit of a made for TV feel. Bond films always reflect culture and this was maybe influenced by the TV of the time?
I never feel like the The Living Daylights loses anything, because it has the background of the Afghanistan War and menacing villians like Necros. Whittaker becomes dangerous at the end too.
Sure, both films are about drugs - not blowing up the whole world - but Bond films don't have to be pastiches of themselves to be great thrillers, sometimes it's great to just bring a megalomaniac arsehole down.
That's as relevant today as ever.
Touch of the Patrick Batemans on the oeuvre of Phil Collins here.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Agree. Kemi needs clear blue water between the Tories and the far right. Both the Tories and Reform (SFAICS) are committed to not implementing net zero. But, and it's a big issue, it is not clear whether they differ on the fundamentals.
Reform have no policy on 'climate change'. They don't officially declare that it's real or a hoax. But the vibes indicate that it's a hoax - following Trump. It seems to me the Tories are too close to this position. The Tories are hoping to get away with a policy of not net zero (which is a popular retail policy for as long as the earth doesn't explode) and silent caution on whether the CO2 thingy is real.
They may of course get lucky. A couple of arctic winters and cool summers would sort it for now.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
I am not a big one for tagging, but perhaps @Mexicanpete could actually answer this one - especially considering it is not just Norwegian imports that the extra from the North Sea will displace, but Saudi, Qatari and US imports - and fecking Russian imports via India, that need to be liquified down and sent halfway across the world, with the requisite emissions?
Why is it so important to you that you actively prefer MORE emissions, just for the sake of making a twunt out of our country?
That same question can go to the rest of you too. Especially the ones who whine on and on about Norway's 'sovereign wealth fund' - how do you propose we get a sovereign wealth fund without generating some sovereign wealth?
I’ll have a go, Lucky. I can give you answers that are likely true, though neither of us - being Thatcherite’s - will like the sound of all the answers.
First of all, UK does have a sovereign wealth fund. It’s just a bit naff compared to Norways and the Saudi’s. So to be able to do anything about that now, we get in a Time Machine, lock Lady Thatcher in a wardrobe so Jim Callaghan wins in 1979, ensure Tony Benns Labour Leadership 1980 coup, for a decade of socialism, that doesn’t sell off the North Sea instead copies Norway by setting up a 70% government owned company for extracting the gas and oil with most the profits go in a sovereign wealth fund - I understand it as a big hedge fund thing that sustains itself with investments all over the world. Thatcherism didn’t get everything right. Sovereign wealth fund would have been better than sell off the oil and gas. That is saying it in hindsight though, as knowing afterwards many investors carpet bagged the sell offs, and mass share ownership and benefiting from dividends didn’t really happen on popular capitalism critical mass as hoped.
The Green Party noisy today about rumours of more North Sea drilling under Labour devastating the earths climate - but note the UK Net Zero target was not created and honed by Red Ed or Green Party and other climate Zealots, but by the Conservative Party. Created on the basis the choice isn’t fossil or green, the only right answer is both. It comes down to a question of pace of conversion, how much hair shirt to wear is the only argument here, because all nations of the world should be working on conversion from fossil fuels to green - even Trumps America - because the impact and injury from climate change, rising sea levels and population are not just global, but very localised at home too. And if you want to change the world you set it an example and give leadership - and it’s working brilliantly because dozens of countries contacted UK for the wording to make into their own laws and identical long term planning committees with businesses. Massive success story for the Conservatives from their 13 years in power.
Let’s do this the Yorkshire way Lucky, cut to the bottom line. The reason I am on board is - in the bigger picture, the long run in contrast where politics is so short termist focus on the next voting day - I fully believe fighting climate change now will be cheaper costs than not fighting it in the long run. Much much cheaper. So I am on board for it being not a climate argument, but an economic one. Whilst you are not on board for this reason?
Nothing we do in terms of the North Sea will make one iota of difference to how much oil and gas we burn. That should be the criteria for whether any individual part of a net zero policy is sensible or not. Indeed shutting down the North Sea and importing oil and gas will make our emissions (if measured properly and including the extraction and transportation emissions) slightly worse than if we continue to use our own hydrocarbons during the transition.
Goldfinger for me. Solid imaginative plot. Great villain and sidekick. Peak physical Connery. A golf scene. Our macho protagonist in that ridiculous short blue onesy by the pool.
And this memorable scene:
Bond wakes up tied to a chair and is faced by Honor Blackman gazing down at him. There's no fear only amused curiosity. His eyes glint and he drawls a single word.
"Pussy!"
From Russia with Love.
The best Bond and also the best Bond villain in Robert Shaw.
Parecious - a variant spelling of paroecious adjective (of mosses and related plants) having the male and female reproductive organs at different levels on the same stem
For some it might still be a bit raw for such satire, but it does show that Tuchel has zero credit left in the tank now, so it’s better for all parties if he just moved on.
How the history of this will be written up, Englands failure to get into the final and win it will be defined - just as the comedy piece you posted - by who Tuchel didn’t take, and who he did take. And also the failure in the semi was 100% Tuchel’s mistake and even cowardice. However, in my opinion and that of my dad, when Argentina knuckled down to focus and show composure, they actually played top quality football, and that played a big part in our loss.
No one tipped England for the win before the tournament, media experts thought QF would be about it. What actually happened was semi finals was thanks to Jude Bellingham - if Jude broke his foot a week before the first game, topping the group and getting through last 32 and last 16 were not sure to have happened.
Apart from 90% of the games played during my sleep time, I thought it was fun though.
@Brixian59 and I said before the tournament Saint Jude was the standout English player.
That’s because you share the same language whilst the rest of don’t understand him. Jude I mean, not Brix, though applies to both I guess.
I confess I didn’t know Bellingham so well or think much of him. I am now converted to a massive fan. Not just the best attacking midfielder in world football, but in the media interviews he oozed maturity, understanding and leadership. Wow!
Comments
Dropped the nut on him.
“Nolan takes a different psychological turn for the very end of the film. Rather than reclaiming his throne, a gravely wounded Odysseus abdicates his power to his son and sails away into exile… at which point he realises he’s Mr Benn - and suddenly he’s back in a Gentleman’s Tailors…”
At least Philistines are wary of geeks baring their gifts.
I did very much enjoy The Return. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLlcIfmqcPw
I understand where you say UK can help balance of payments a bit with some tax revenue, but can you explain “UK Profits?” I’ve understood till now there’s nothing under the North Sea UK owns.
I have plenty of complaints about Burnham, but playing to each audience like Johnson did is politically astute, certainly when Starmer was so incredibly poor at addressing his audiences.
“ BREAKING: Thomas Tuchel has vowed to use tonight’s game as the first step on the path to Euro 28 glory and has named the following team…
Pickford, D Henderson; Quansah, Konsa, Stones, Burn, Guehi, Chalobah, O’Reilly, Spence; J Henderson (c).”
https://x.com/brucemillington/status/2078406097535197569?s=61
So what is the starting 11?
Why is it so important to you that you actively prefer MORE emissions, just for the sake of making a twunt out of our country?
That same question can go to the rest of you too. Especially the ones who whine on and on about Norway's 'sovereign wealth fund' - how do you propose we get a sovereign wealth fund without generating some sovereign wealth?
* Astuteness doesn't come into it.
🔥 Russia’s “deep rear” logistics just got absolutely smoked by Ukrainian long-range strikes — Moscow & Tambov regions, drone component factories, and an oil facility turned into parking lots. Sea of Azov & Crimea got the mid-range special too.
Ukraine’s drone warriors don’t miss. Cry harder, Putin.
https://bsky.app/profile/joncooper-us.bsky.social/post/3mqwfolfxg22z
How the history of this will be written up, Englands failure to get into the final and win it will be defined - just as the comedy piece you posted - by who Tuchel didn’t take, and who he did take. And also the failure in the semi was 100% Tuchel’s mistake and even cowardice. However, in my opinion and that of my dad, when Argentina knuckled down to focus and show composure, they actually played top quality football, and that played a big part in our loss.
No one tipped England for the win before the tournament, media experts thought QF would be about it. What actually happened was semi finals was thanks to Jude Bellingham - if Jude broke his foot a week before the first game, topping the group and getting through last 32 and last 16 were not sure to have happened.
Apart from 90% of the games played during my sleep time, I thought it was fun though.
It says a lot about Labour that he has become PM in the first place.
Licence to Kill is an excellent thriller.
Living Daylights is also very very good. As is Spy Who Loved Me.
parecious
lateritious
I watched Licence to Kill again last night.
It is very dark, but Dalton's acting is superb and the chemistry between him and Robert Davi possible the best in the whole series.
I really enjoyed it.
@CPhilpOfficial
I heard that dozens of convenience stores, mobile phone shops and bazaars on Whitechapel Road in East London are sponsoring skilled worker visas.
I went there yesterday to investigate this scam.
https://x.com/CPhilpOfficial/status/2078476956408955219
@CPhilpOfficial
I heard that dozens of convenience stores, mobile phone shops and bazaars on Whitechapel Road in East London are sponsoring skilled worker visas.
I went there yesterday to investigate this scam.
https://x.com/CPhilpOfficial/status/2078476956408955219
And this memorable scene:
Bond wakes up tied to a chair and is faced by Honor Blackman gazing down at him. There's no fear only amused curiosity. His eyes glint and he drawls a single word.
"Pussy!"
Sure, both films are about drugs - not blowing up the whole world - but Bond films don't have to be pastiches of themselves to be great thrillers, sometimes it's great to just bring a megalomaniac arsehole down.
That's as relevant today as ever.
First of all, UK does have a sovereign wealth fund. It’s just a bit naff compared to Norways and the Saudi’s. So to be able to do anything about that now, we get in a Time Machine, lock Lady Thatcher in a wardrobe so Jim Callaghan wins in 1979, ensure Tony Benns Labour Leadership 1980 coup, for a decade of socialism, that doesn’t sell off the North Sea instead copies Norway by setting up a 70% government owned company for extracting the gas and oil with most the profits go in a sovereign wealth fund - I understand it as a big hedge fund thing that sustains itself with investments all over the world.
Thatcherism didn’t get everything right. Sovereign wealth fund would have been better than sell off the oil and gas. That is saying it in hindsight though, as knowing afterwards many investors carpet bagged the sell offs, and mass share ownership and benefiting from dividends didn’t really happen on popular capitalism critical mass as hoped.
The Green Party noisy today about rumours of more North Sea drilling under Labour devastating the earths climate - but note the UK Net Zero target was not created and honed by Red Ed or Green Party and other climate Zealots, but by the Conservative Party. Created on the basis the choice isn’t fossil or green, the only right answer is both. It comes down to a question of pace of conversion, how much hair shirt to wear is the only argument here, because all nations of the world should be working on conversion from fossil fuels to green - even Trumps America - because the impact and injury from climate change, rising sea levels and population are not just global, but very localised at home too. And if you want to change the world you set it an example and give leadership - and it’s working brilliantly because dozens of countries contacted UK for the wording to make into their own laws and identical long term planning committees with businesses. Massive success story for the Conservatives from their 13 years in power.
Let’s do this the Yorkshire way Lucky, cut to the bottom line. The reason I am on board is - in the bigger picture, the long run in contrast where politics is so short termist focus on the next voting day - I fully believe fighting climate change now will be cheaper costs than not fighting it in the long run. Much much cheaper. So I am on board for it being not a climate argument, but an economic one. Whilst you are not on board for this reason?
Cubby Broccoli he is not; he worships money not Fleming.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/arsenious
Half-serious is hyphenated, but halfseriously isn’t
isn’t
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/halfseriously
(compliment!)
Reform have no policy on 'climate change'. They don't officially declare that it's real or a hoax. But the vibes indicate that it's a hoax - following Trump. It seems to me the Tories are too close to this position. The Tories are hoping to get away with a policy of not net zero (which is a popular retail policy for as long as the earth doesn't explode) and silent caution on whether the CO2 thingy is real.
They may of course get lucky. A couple of arctic winters and cool summers would sort it for now.
The best Bond and also the best Bond villain in Robert Shaw.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/caesious
Parecious - a variant spelling of paroecious
adjective
(of mosses and related plants) having the male and female reproductive organs at different levels on the same stem
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/parecious
Lateritious - adj - relating to or resembling brick in colour
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lateritious
I confess I didn’t know Bellingham so well or think much of him. I am now converted to a massive fan. Not just the best attacking midfielder in world football, but in the media interviews he oozed maturity, understanding and leadership. Wow!