From Pret, I can confirm that the very pretty girl is indeed from Italy, "outside Bologna". I can also tell you that she loves London, but hates the weather. I did not ask if she was planning to (or would attempt to ) stay post-Brexit, as there were people behind me in the queue who seemed to be under the mistaken impression that I was chatting her up rather than doing research.
Like I said in the earlier discussion, she is using the job to pay her way to experience London for a year or two, and the attempted comparison with the employment preferences of our own young people is missing the point entirely.
Many years ago during my student days, I spent a summer in the Israeli desert doing unskilled manual work for an archaeological dig. Basically a month humping rocks and buckets of earth about in the intense heat, for no pay but free accommodation and food. It allowed me to broaden my horizons spending a summer somewhere I couldn't otherwise have afforded for so long, and I expect the attitudes of the young European Pret workers isn't that different. Obviously if someone back then had offered me the chance to hump rocks in Kent for next to no pay I wouldn't have been interested.
Good point.
Though I also wonder if those who believe Brits don't do service jobs have ever travelled north of Watford Gap?
Can we rename The Watford Gap?
It's nowhere near Watford.
Ditto Leeds Castle, which is in the poncey Jessie South and not in the Garden of Eden that is Yorkshire
It is indeed right next to Watford. Just not the Watford of which you are thinking.
From Pret, I can confirm that the very pretty girl is indeed from Italy, "outside Bologna". I can also tell you that she loves London, but hates the weather. I did not ask if she was planning to (or would attempt to ) stay post-Brexit, as there were people behind me in the queue who seemed to be under the mistaken impression that I was chatting her up rather than doing research.
Like I said in the earlier discussion, she is using the job to pay her way to experience London for a year or two, and the attempted comparison with the employment preferences of our own young people is missing the point entirely.
Many years ago during my student days, I spent a summer in the Israeli desert doing unskilled manual work for an archaeological dig. Basically a month humping rocks and buckets of earth about in the intense heat, for no pay but free accommodation and food. It allowed me to broaden my horizons spending a summer somewhere I couldn't otherwise have afforded for so long, and I expect the attitudes of the young European Pret workers isn't that different. Obviously if someone back then had offered me the chance to hump rocks in Kent for next to no pay I wouldn't have been interested.
Good point.
Though I also wonder if those who believe Brits don't do service jobs have ever travelled north of Watford Gap?
Can we rename The Watford Gap?
It's nowhere near Watford.
Ditto Leeds Castle, which is in the poncey Jessie South and not in the Garden of Eden that is Yorkshire
It is indeed right next to Watford. Just not the Watford of which you are thinking.
That's a very good article, summarising exactly where I think we are. The question is now not whether it is hard or soft but whether it is orderly or disorderly.
I have to agree as well. Hard Brexit is the only real option. One reason why the UK government cannot be tied into something which can't be delievered.
All those wanting a vote to tie the UK government into a 'soft' brexit have to answer this question. What happens if they (the EU) turn around and say 'No'?
Parliment will have instructed the government to do something which cannot be achieved, and we'll have a real crisis on our hands.
That's a very good article, summarising exactly where I think we are. The question is now not whether it is hard or soft but whether it is orderly or disorderly.
Agreed. A better article than we see in the main papers.
From Pret, I can confirm that the very pretty girl is indeed from Italy, "outside Bologna". I can also tell you that she loves London, but hates the weather. I did not ask if she was planning to (or would attempt to ) stay post-Brexit, as there were people behind me in the queue who seemed to be under the mistaken impression that I was chatting her up rather than doing research.
Like I said in the earlier discussion, she is using the job to pay her way to experience London for a year or two, learning English into the bargain, and the attempted comparison with the employment preferences of our own young people is missing the point entirely.
Many years ago during my student days, I spent a summer in the Israeli desert doing unskilled manual work for an archaeological dig. Basically a month humping rocks and buckets of earth about in the intense heat, for no pay but free accommodation and food. It allowed me to broaden my horizons spending a summer somewhere I couldn't otherwise have afforded for so long, and I expect the attitudes of the young European Pret workers isn't that different. Obviously if someone back then had offered me the chance to hump rocks in Kent for next to no pay I wouldn't have been interested.
A big reason for spending some time in the UK, doing whatever job, is indeed to perfect one's English. Good English is essential for most non-menial jobs across the continent, and a spell spent working in the UK (or other English-speaking country) looks great on a CV.
From Pret, I can confirm that the very pretty girl is indeed from Italy, "outside Bologna". I can also tell you that she loves London, but hates the weather. I did not ask if she was planning to (or would attempt to ) stay post-Brexit, as there were people behind me in the queue who seemed to be under the mistaken impression that I was chatting her up rather than doing research.
Like I said in the earlier discussion, she is using the job to pay her way to experience London for a year or two, and the attempted comparison with the employment preferences of our own young people is missing the point entirely.
Many years ago during my student days, I spent a summer in the Israeli desert doing unskilled manual work for an archaeological dig. Basically a month humping rocks and buckets of earth about in the intense heat, for no pay but free accommodation and food. It allowed me to broaden my horizons spending a summer somewhere I couldn't otherwise have afforded for so long, and I expect the attitudes of the young European Pret workers isn't that different. Obviously if someone back then had offered me the chance to hump rocks in Kent for next to no pay I wouldn't have been interested.
Good point.
Though I also wonder if those who believe Brits don't do service jobs have ever travelled north of Watford Gap?
Ditto Leeds Castle, which is in the poncey Jessie South and not in the Garden of Eden that is Yorkshire
I once rented Leeds Castle for a night, so I object to that slur. It is a fine building.
An excellent (and very well-written) article, David.
On the side-point about the slowness of the financial markets to understand that Brexit means Brexit, I do wonder if they still have further to go in accepting the reality. My gut feeling is that they aren't there yet.
In the same YouGov survey the "UK right/wrong to leave" question has moved almost to neck and neck (45% v 44% in favour of "right to leave") - which suggests those posting here that, were the referendum to be held again, there would now be an overwhelming leave vote may be engaging in some wishful thinking.
That said, of course the circumstances of such a second vote would influence the vote and I fully recognise the Winchester phenomenon.
Nevertheless the view that after the vote most people now think leaving the EU is a good idea appears to be challenged by the polling.
There is a difference between what people would do in a second vote and what they would have done in the first one had they known how it's turned out so far. That first referendum can't be undone. I would still vote Remain in a first referendum but given that we've had that one, I would now vote to confirm that outcome in a second one, unless there was a very major change in circumstances that justified going back to the country.
Paul Joseph Watson Trump sexual assault accuser Jessica Leeds has a history of disputes with Trump and a clear vendetta against him. https://t.co/hA8WrDHTel
You would have thought, wouldn't you, that the NYT would have at least checked that out first.
But that would have been journalism, instead of propaganda.
.....The evidence is legion. Hence my WTF outrage. I'm appalled at it - dozens of journalists are in Dems pocket - that isn't reporting - its propaganda as you say.
What shocked me was that report (quoted on PB) that there were circa 30 newspapers endorsing Clinton and none Trump.
Perhaps that says more about Trump than it does the papers.
May be but they have no need to endorse either of 2 terrible candidates.
That's a very good article, summarising exactly where I think we are. The question is now not whether it is hard or soft but whether it is orderly or disorderly.
I have to agree as well. Hard Brexit is the only real option. One reason why the UK government cannot be tied into something which can't be delievered.
All those wanting a vote to tie the UK government into a 'soft' brexit have to answer this question. What happens if they (the EU) turn around and say 'No'?
Parliment will have instructed the government to do something which cannot be achieved, and we'll have a real crisis on our hands.
Mr H is nevertheless wishing away the many obstacles that potentially lie between where we are, and getting to a hard Brexit. This may indeed be the eventual outcome - but I suggest that Mr Herdson's article is nevertheless an intriguing brew of both analysis and wishful thinking.
Whilst deferring to nobody in my auto-contempt of anything Corbyn says, a local over-subscribed office complex in a marina here has just done the same thing although on a smaller scale.
They found a floating glass office which was moored in Belgium and they found that it was more cost-effective to shift it to the other side of Europe than convert something existing or build new on prime land.
Whilst the devil would be in the detail I'd just say that the idea shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Tesco and Unilever have settled their dispute. Far less than 10% is the word. I'd guess around 3% in the end and Tesco will have got a firm commitment for a review if Sterling strengthens to a specific level.
I once rented Leeds Castle for a night, so I object to that slur. It is a fine building.
Not only that, but with a very unponcey history. In 1321 Lady Badlesmere, who had been left in charge by her husband, refused to admit Isabella of France and her armed escort, instead drawing up the drawbridge and firing arrows at them, killing six. That didn't go down terribly well with Isabella's husband Edward II, but you'd think TSE would be keen on Lady Badlesmere telling the French to get stuffed!
Tesco and Unilever have settled their dispute. Far less than 10% is the word. I'd guess around 3% in the end and Tesco will have got a firm commitment for a review if Sterling strengthens to a specific level.
Hopefully people also picked up the angle that Unilever also proposed a similar set of price increases to its Irish retailers, and the whole story actually had very little to do with Brexit at all.
That's a very good article, summarising exactly where I think we are. The question is now not whether it is hard or soft but whether it is orderly or disorderly.
I have to agree as well. Hard Brexit is the only real option. One reason why the UK government cannot be tied into something which can't be delievered.
All those wanting a vote to tie the UK government into a 'soft' brexit have to answer this question. What happens if they (the EU) turn around and say 'No'?
Parliment will have instructed the government to do something which cannot be achieved, and we'll have a real crisis on our hands.
Mr H is nevertheless wishing away the many obstacles that potentially lie between where we are, and getting to a hard Brexit. This may indeed be the eventual outcome - but I suggest that Mr Herdson's article is nevertheless an intriguing brew of both analysis and wishful thinking.
I would say there are far less hurdles to a HB than a SB.
In the same YouGov survey the "UK right/wrong to leave" question has moved almost to neck and neck (45% v 44% in favour of "right to leave") - which suggests those posting here that, were the referendum to be held again, there would now be an overwhelming leave vote may be engaging in some wishful thinking.
That said, of course the circumstances of such a second vote would influence the vote and I fully recognise the Winchester phenomenon.
Nevertheless the view that after the vote most people now think leaving the EU is a good idea appears to be challenged by the polling.
There is a difference between what people would do in a second vote and what they would have done in the first one had they known how it's turned out so far. That first referendum can't be undone. I would still vote Remain in a first referendum but given that we've had that one, I would now vote to confirm that outcome in a second one, unless there was a very major change in circumstances that justified going back to the country.
I guess I should at least thank you for reading the first and third paragraphs of my post? ;-)
Tesco and Unilever have settled their dispute. Far less than 10% is the word. I'd guess around 3% in the end and Tesco will have got a firm commitment for a review if Sterling strengthens to a specific level.
Hopefully people also picked up the angle that Unilever also proposed a similar set of price increases to its Irish retailers, and the whole story actually had very little to do with Brexit at all.
I'm just disappointed that it was settled so quickly. I was looking forward to today's Sun headline being 'Marmite Crisis Spreads', but sadly they had to fall back on 'Marmite Crisis Is Toast'.
Texas Trump+4 (SUSA). Little bit disappointing for my longshot Texas bet, but it fits with a Clinton national lead of around 7%. Would need to be into double digits for me to get lucky :-)
Paul Joseph Watson Trump sexual assault accuser Jessica Leeds has a history of disputes with Trump and a clear vendetta against him. https://t.co/hA8WrDHTel
You would have thought, wouldn't you, that the NYT would have at least checked that out first.
But that would have been journalism, instead of propaganda.
.....The evidence is legion. Hence my WTF outrage. I'm appalled at it - dozens of journalists are in Dems pocket - that isn't reporting - its propaganda as you say.
What shocked me was that report (quoted on PB) that there were circa 30 newspapers endorsing Clinton and none Trump.
Perhaps that says more about Trump than it does the papers.
May be but they have no need to endorse either of 2 terrible candidates.
Unless they think that one is more terrible, then they have to, really.
Tesco and Unilever have settled their dispute. Far less than 10% is the word. I'd guess around 3% in the end and Tesco will have got a firm commitment for a review if Sterling strengthens to a specific level.
Hopefully people also picked up the angle that Unilever also proposed a similar set of price increases to its Irish retailers, and the whole story actually had very little to do with Brexit at all.
I'm just disappointed that it was settled so quickly. I was looking forward to today's Sun headline being 'Marmite Crisis Spreads', but sadly they had to fall back on 'Marmite Crisis Is Toast'.
I am sure some people are happy the Marmite crisis is over, whereas others really won't like it.
In the same YouGov survey the "UK right/wrong to leave" question has moved almost to neck and neck (45% v 44% in favour of "right to leave") - which suggests those posting here that, were the referendum to be held again, there would now be an overwhelming leave vote may be engaging in some wishful thinking.
That said, of course the circumstances of such a second vote would influence the vote and I fully recognise the Winchester phenomenon.
Nevertheless the view that after the vote most people now think leaving the EU is a good idea appears to be challenged by the polling.
There is a difference between what people would do in a second vote and what they would have done in the first one had they known how it's turned out so far. That first referendum can't be undone. I would still vote Remain in a first referendum but given that we've had that one, I would now vote to confirm that outcome in a second one, unless there was a very major change in circumstances that justified going back to the country.
I guess I should at least thank you for reading the first and third paragraphs of my post? ;-)
Paul Joseph Watson Trump sexual assault accuser Jessica Leeds has a history of disputes with Trump and a clear vendetta against him. https://t.co/hA8WrDHTel
You would have thought, wouldn't you, that the NYT would have at least checked that out first.
But that would have been journalism, instead of propaganda.
.....The evidence is legion. Hence my WTF outrage. I'm appalled at it - dozens of journalists are in Dems pocket - that isn't reporting - its propaganda as you say.
What shocked me was that report (quoted on PB) that there were circa 30 newspapers endorsing Clinton and none Trump.
Perhaps that says more about Trump than it does the papers.
May be but they have no need to endorse either of 2 terrible candidates.
Unless they think that one is more terrible, then they have to, really.
They can endorse a terrible candidate, or endorse a terrible system, or make a terrible abrogation of responsibility. The land of the free (choice).
I once rented Leeds Castle for a night, so I object to that slur. It is a fine building.
Not only that, but with a very unponcey history. In 1321 Lady Badlesmere, who had been left in charge by her husband, refused to admit Isabella of France and her armed escort, instead drawing up the drawbridge and firing arrows at them, killing six. That didn't go down terribly well with Isabella's husband Edward II, but you'd think TSE would be keen on Lady Badlesmere telling the French to get stuffed!
Lady Badlesmere was clearly a lady of taste and discernment. Who would have wanted Isabella into their home? Even Edward II came to regret it (not that he had much choice, mind).
I could never understand the first verdict....how could you convict one and not the other if the argument was that she was too drunk to have sex and couldn't remember anything.Either they both were innocent, or they both get convicted or am I missing something?
Tesco and Unilever have settled their dispute. Far less than 10% is the word. I'd guess around 3% in the end and Tesco will have got a firm commitment for a review if Sterling strengthens to a specific level.
Hopefully people also picked up the angle that Unilever also proposed a similar set of price increases to its Irish retailers, and the whole story actually had very little to do with Brexit at all.
I'm just disappointed that it was settled so quickly. I was looking forward to today's Sun headline being 'Marmite Crisis Spreads', but sadly they had to fall back on 'Marmite Crisis Is Toast'.
That's a very good article, summarising exactly where I think we are. The question is now not whether it is hard or soft but whether it is orderly or disorderly.
I have to agree as well. Hard Brexit is the only real option. One reason why the UK government cannot be tied into something which can't be delievered.
All those wanting a vote to tie the UK government into a 'soft' brexit have to answer this question. What happens if they (the EU) turn around and say 'No'?
Parliment will have instructed the government to do something which cannot be achieved, and we'll have a real crisis on our hands.
Mr H is nevertheless wishing away the many obstacles that potentially lie between where we are, and getting to a hard Brexit. This may indeed be the eventual outcome - but I suggest that Mr Herdson's article is nevertheless an intriguing brew of both analysis and wishful thinking.
The only meaningful obstacle in getting a hard Brexit is reaching a deal with the rEU. The public, parliament and Conservative party would be much bigger problems for a soft Brexit target. Reaching agreement with the rEU won't be easy, I fully grant you that, but when something's in the interests of both sides, they can usually reach agreement.
Texas Trump+4 (SUSA). Little bit disappointing for my longshot Texas bet, but it fits with a Clinton national lead of around 7%. Would need to be into double digits for me to get lucky :-)
Whilst deferring to nobody in my auto-contempt of anything Corbyn says, a local over-subscribed office complex in a marina here has just done the same thing although on a smaller scale.
They found a floating glass office which was moored in Belgium and they found that it was more cost-effective to shift it to the other side of Europe than convert something existing or build new on prime land.
Whilst the devil would be in the detail I'd just say that the idea shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
It would be a great place to float new policies Geoff
O/T, but I always understood it was polite to begin a business letter "Dear Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. ....." Recently, I've noticed a number of solicitors dropping "Dear" from the beginning of the letter. Is that a general trend?
That's a very good article, summarising exactly where I think we are. The question is now not whether it is hard or soft but whether it is orderly or disorderly.
I have to agree as well. Hard Brexit is the only real option. One reason why the UK government cannot be tied into something which can't be delievered.
All those wanting a vote to tie the UK government into a 'soft' brexit have to answer this question. What happens if they (the EU) turn around and say 'No'?
Parliment will have instructed the government to do something which cannot be achieved, and we'll have a real crisis on our hands.
Mr H is nevertheless wishing away the many obstacles that potentially lie between where we are, and getting to a hard Brexit. This may indeed be the eventual outcome - but I suggest that Mr Herdson's article is nevertheless an intriguing brew of both analysis and wishful thinking.
The only meaningful obstacle in getting a hard Brexit is reaching a deal with the rEU. The public, parliament and Conservative party would be much bigger problems for a soft Brexit target. Reaching agreement with the rEU won't be easy, I fully grant you that, but when something's in the interests of both sides, they can usually reach agreement.
The currency markets. The bond markets. The stock market. Public opinion. Divisions within the Tory Party. The House of Lords. Any electoral contests that might come along. The scots. Gibralter. Northern Ireland. The perilous state of the economy. The perilous state of the world and international relations. And, yes, the rest of the EU.
O/T, but I always understood it was polite to begin a business letter "Dear Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. ....." Recently, I've noticed a number of solicitors dropping "Dear" from the beginning of the letter. Is that a general trend?
O/T, but I always understood it was polite to begin a business letter "Dear Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. ....." Recently, I've noticed a number of solicitors dropping "Dear" from the beginning of the letter. Is that a general trend?
No. At least I certainly hope not.
It's bad enough when people address emails with a name only without say Hi [name], Good morning [name] or Hello [name] –although becoming more commonplace, particularly in the States.
Some of the newfangled comms apps (many of which succeeded in making comms more frequent, confusing and complex) are undoubtedly to blame.
A colleague of mine loved Yammer because he said he didn't then need to bother with the "how are yous" and the "best wishes" – otherwise known as the good manners that are the oil of any well-functioning organisation.
I once rented Leeds Castle for a night, so I object to that slur. It is a fine building.
Not only that, but with a very unponcey history. In 1321 Lady Badlesmere, who had been left in charge by her husband, refused to admit Isabella of France and her armed escort, instead drawing up the drawbridge and firing arrows at them, killing six. That didn't go down terribly well with Isabella's husband Edward II, but you'd think TSE would be keen on Lady Badlesmere telling the French to get stuffed!
And of course it was used as the setting for one of the greatest films ever made. The Duke of D'Ascoyne certainly had good taste. :-)
In less than one month's time, either a lot of people will owe Plato apologies, or she's going to be the most disappointed person in the Western world.
O/T, but I always understood it was polite to begin a business letter "Dear Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. ....." Recently, I've noticed a number of solicitors dropping "Dear" from the beginning of the letter. Is that a general trend?
I wouldn't be surprised. The trend in proper letter writing has been downwards for many years. Even my bank now regularly sends me letters full of grammatical mistakes, sometimes to the point where the meaning has be guessed at, and these are letters asking me to buy their products.
However, I don't have the same problem with my solicitors, with whom, thank goodness, I have infrequent dealings. Their letters are always hand-written and very proper.
William Kristol (Project for the New American Century, "neocon", Emergency Committee for Israel) is calling for Trump to quit, and saying that the replacement would probably be Mitt Romney, perhaps Mike Pence.
He says that if Trump won't quit then "serious Republicans and conservatives" should persuade "someone like" Romney to stand as an independent write-in candidate, urge a vote for Evan McMullin, or both, provided McMullin agrees that his electors would vote for Romney.
I doubt many leading "neocons" will stay aboard the Trump ship now that Trump is enthusiastically dogwhistling against the "small handful of global special interests". It doesn't take much effort to decode who he is talking about. Next maybe he will talk about their choice of headgear and their renowned fear of their mothers.
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
Seriously? Looks to me like a significant enough proportion of the Leave vote did so despite thinking it would leave the nation worse off. In fact looks like if everyone voted on this alone then Remain would have won handsomely.
O/T, but I always understood it was polite to begin a business letter "Dear Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. ....." Recently, I've noticed a number of solicitors dropping "Dear" from the beginning of the letter. Is that a general trend?
I wouldn't be surprised. The trend in proper letter writing has been downwards for many years. Even my bank now regularly sends me letters full of grammatical mistakes, sometimes to the point where the meaning has be guessed at, and these are letters asking me to buy their products.
However, I don't have the same problem with my solicitors, with whom, thank goodness, I have infrequent dealings. Their letters are always hand-written and very proper.
I once rented Leeds Castle for a night, so I object to that slur. It is a fine building.
Not only that, but with a very unponcey history. In 1321 Lady Badlesmere, who had been left in charge by her husband, refused to admit Isabella of France and her armed escort, instead drawing up the drawbridge and firing arrows at them, killing six. That didn't go down terribly well with Isabella's husband Edward II, but you'd think TSE would be keen on Lady Badlesmere telling the French to get stuffed!
And of course it was used as the setting for one of the greatest films ever made. The Duke of D'Ascoyne certainly had good taste. :-)
You know I've seen that film four or five times, and never recognised the setting (though I haven't been, so maybe not so surprising).
I once rented Leeds Castle for a night, so I object to that slur. It is a fine building.
Not only that, but with a very unponcey history. In 1321 Lady Badlesmere, who had been left in charge by her husband, refused to admit Isabella of France and her armed escort, instead drawing up the drawbridge and firing arrows at them, killing six. That didn't go down terribly well with Isabella's husband Edward II, but you'd think TSE would be keen on Lady Badlesmere telling the French to get stuffed!
And of course it was used as the setting for one of the greatest films ever made. The Duke of D'Ascoyne certainly had good taste. :-)
You know I've seen that film four or five times, and never recognised the setting (though I haven't been, so maybe not so surprising).
One place that's well worth a visit, and not far from Leeds Castle, is Ightham Mote, which is like a miniature version; a moated, fortified, manor house, and really beautiful.
''The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off. ''
They'll soon change their tune when their beer, bingo and white van running costs get more expensive, said virtually every liberal commentator out there.
I once rented Leeds Castle for a night, so I object to that slur. It is a fine building.
Not only that, but with a very unponcey history. In 1321 Lady Badlesmere, who had been left in charge by her husband, refused to admit Isabella of France and her armed escort, instead drawing up the drawbridge and firing arrows at them, killing six. That didn't go down terribly well with Isabella's husband Edward II, but you'd think TSE would be keen on Lady Badlesmere telling the French to get stuffed!
And of course it was used as the setting for one of the greatest films ever made. The Duke of D'Ascoyne certainly had good taste. :-)
You know I've seen that film four or five times, and never recognised the setting (though I haven't been, so maybe not so surprising).
One place that's well worth a visit, and not far from Leeds Castle, is Ightham Mote, which is like a miniature version; a moated, fortified, manor house, and really beautiful.
A cycle ride from where I was brought up. A remarkably well preserved medieval (1300s) moated Manor House. Well worth a visit.
O/T, but I always understood it was polite to begin a business letter "Dear Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. ....." Recently, I've noticed a number of solicitors dropping "Dear" from the beginning of the letter. Is that a general trend?
I wouldn't be surprised. The trend in proper letter writing has been downwards for many years. Even my bank now regularly sends me letters full of grammatical mistakes, sometimes to the point where the meaning has be guessed at, and these are letters asking me to buy their products.
However, I don't have the same problem with my solicitors, with whom, thank goodness, I have infrequent dealings. Their letters are always hand-written and very proper.
Your solicitors hand write their letters?
Yes, doesn't yours? The accompanying documents are all typewritten, well computer-produced these days I suppose.
I am really struggling to grasp May's thinking here
Probably cold politics. Those North of the Border that feel strongly against Independence will stick with, or switch to, Ruth. The majority pissed off with English intransigence will stick with or switch to the SNP. In the short run the losers are Labour and the LibDems.
Plus it's an extra distraction May doesn't need; Brexit is looking challenging enough already .
But it is playing with fire if it fuels desire for independence. Thwarting genuinely supported independence demands often doesn't end well.
Yes, I cannot see how telling the Scots they can't do something is in any way wise. Their national character is to push back against being bossed about by the English.
In any case, as has been noted on PB several times before, Scotland is constitutionally an equal partner in the Union. She has the right to leave that voluntary union at the time of her own choosing.
Well there you have it in all its glory. Apparently the Scottish can't be pushed about, it's a voluntary Union with equal partnership and they can leave "at the time of her own choosing". Not so for England and Wales apparently also in an EU.
You are the biggest remainer on here and you post that? Seriously??
You are either a massive Hypocrite or the EU is none of those things. I think both are correct.
I do hope the media will learn to stop calling people rapists and victims at the point allegations are made now. The presumption of guilt is ridiculous.
From Pret, I can confirm that the very pretty girl is indeed from Italy, "outside Bologna". I can also tell you that she loves London, but hates the weather. I did not ask if she was planning to (or would attempt to ) stay post-Brexit, as there were people behind me in the queue who seemed to be under the mistaken impression that I was chatting her up rather than doing research.
I could never understand the first verdict....how could you convict one and not the other if the argument was that she was too drunk to have sex and couldn't remember anything.Either they both were innocent, or they both get convicted or am I missing something?
It was always a dodgy case, and all those who jumped on the outrage bus look very silly. Cheating scumbag he might be, but the way he was treated with the media outrage campaigns determined to stop him ever working again, compared to other scumbag footballers who didn't get any of this e.g. Lee Hughes (who killed somebody), was disgraceful.
Given our society is supposed to be punishment and rehabilitation, intimating any club from even giving him a trial was outrageous. Mob rule with media enabling.
I have to agree as well. Hard Brexit is the only real option. One reason why the UK government cannot be tied into something which can't be delievered.
All those wanting a vote to tie the UK government into a 'soft' brexit have to answer this question. What happens if they (the EU) turn around and say 'No'?
Parliment will have instructed the government to do something which cannot be achieved, and we'll have a real crisis on our hands.
Mr H is nevertheless wishing away the many obstacles that potentially lie between where we are, and getting to a hard Brexit. This may indeed be the eventual outcome - but I suggest that Mr Herdson's article is nevertheless an intriguing brew of both analysis and wishful thinking.
The only meaningful obstacle in getting a hard Brexit is reaching a deal with the rEU. The public, parliament and Conservative party would be much bigger problems for a soft Brexit target. Reaching agreement with the rEU won't be easy, I fully grant you that, but when something's in the interests of both sides, they can usually reach agreement.
The currency markets. The bond markets. The stock market. Public opinion. Divisions within the Tory Party. The House of Lords. Any electoral contests that might come along. The scots. Gibralter. Northern Ireland. The perilous state of the economy. The perilous state of the world and international relations. And, yes, the rest of the EU.
The markets are not obstacles. Their movements might have consequences but the politics will go on.
Public opinion is what is driving a hard, rather than a soft, Brexit.
There are few meaningful divisions within the Tory party on this. Clarke and Soubry might by themselves be a quarter the size of the Lib Dems but they're less than 1% of the parliamentary Tory party.
The Lords can huff and puff but they can't actually do anything of lasting consequence. The Parliament Act exists if they decide to be completely stupid and try to overturn the referendum result.
Electoral contests? It'd take eight losses to take the Tories into minority territory and MPs are better at not dying these days. Besides, with a 10+ point lead, by-elections won't prompt the same foreboding in May that they did in Major.
The Scots (or the SNP) will also huff and puff. They're not going to declare independence with oil at $50 a barrel and which would now involve a hard break with England.
Gibraltar got by for long enough with a far more hostile Spain than is there now. There might be scope for keeping it within the EU. If not, so be it.
Likewise, N Ireland might well kick up problems but it won't be on anything like the scale that have been dealt with before.
O/T, but I always understood it was polite to begin a business letter "Dear Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. ....." Recently, I've noticed a number of solicitors dropping "Dear" from the beginning of the letter. Is that a general trend?
I wouldn't be surprised. The trend in proper letter writing has been downwards for many years. Even my bank now regularly sends me letters full of grammatical mistakes, sometimes to the point where the meaning has be guessed at, and these are letters asking me to buy their products.
However, I don't have the same problem with my solicitors, with whom, thank goodness, I have infrequent dealings. Their letters are always hand-written and very proper.
Your solicitors hand write their letters?
Yes, doesn't yours? The accompanying documents are all typewritten, well computer-produced these days I suppose.
The occasional cover note, perhaps. Not anything I'd ever need as evidence (not the solicitors I work for, not the ones that work for me).
I do hope the media will learn to stop calling people rapists and victims at the point allegations are made now. The presumption of guilt is ridiculous.
I wouldn't hold your breath, we now seem to be in "guilty until proven innocent" territory.
In any case, as has been noted on PB several times before, Scotland is constitutionally an equal partner in the Union. She has the right to leave that voluntary union at the time of her own choosing.
Legally, she doesn't. Constitutional matters are a reserved power for the UK Parliament.
The Act of Union, which created the Union, stated that the Union would be "for ever after":
Article 1: "THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN".
I am really struggling to grasp May's thinking here
Probably cold politics. Those North of the Border that feel strongly against Independence will stick with, or switch to, Ruth. The majority pissed off with English intransigence will stick with or switch to the SNP. In the short run the losers are Labour and the LibDems.
Plus it's an extra distraction May doesn't need; Brexit is looking challenging enough already .
But it is playing with fire if it fuels desire for independence. Thwarting genuinely supported independence demands often doesn't end well.
Yes, I cannot see how telling the Scots they can't do something is in any way wise. Their national character is to push back against being bossed about by the English.
In any case, as has been noted on PB several times before, Scotland is constitutionally an equal partner in the Union. She has the right to leave that voluntary union at the time of her own choosing.
Well there you have it in all its glory. Apparently the Scottish can't be pushed about, it's a voluntary Union with equal partnership and they can leave "at the time of her own choosing". Not so for England and Wales apparently also in an EU.
You are the biggest remainer on here and you post that? Seriously??
You are either a massive Hypocrite or the EU is none of those things. I think both are correct.
Eh? I fully support the UK's right to leave the EU, I just don't believe it should. Calm down!!
I could never understand the first verdict....how could you convict one and not the other if the argument was that she was too drunk to have sex and couldn't remember anything.Either they both were innocent, or they both get convicted or am I missing something?
It was always a dodgy case, and all those who jumped on the outrage bus look very silly. Cheating scumbag he might be, but the way he was treated with the media outrage campaigns determined to stop him ever working again, compared to for instance Lee Hughes (who killed somebody), was disgraceful.
"It was always a dodgy case, and all those who jumped on the outrage bus look very silly"
I do hope the media will learn to stop calling people rapists and victims at the point allegations are made now. The presumption of guilt is ridiculous.
I wouldn't hold your breath, we now seem to be in "guilty until proven innocent" territory.
Ched Evans was found guilty, though, his conviction was only subsequently overturned.
I do hope the media will learn to stop calling people rapists and victims at the point allegations are made now. The presumption of guilt is ridiculous.
I wouldn't hold your breath, we now seem to be in "guilty until proven innocent" territory.
Ched Evans was found guilty, though, his conviction was only subsequently overturned.
The point I was responding to wasn't directly related to Ched Evans but to the apparent increase in presumption of guilt by the media.
It should be fairly clear whether Brexit does leave us better off, worse off or about the same economically. The divide between Remainers and Leavers can only be explained by projection: People decide what they want and build their predictions accordingly.
It is the same with Yes/No voters for Scotland's independence. Possibly even starker from the poll I saw. If you voted No, Scotland's economy would nose-dive; if you voted Yes, it's the sunlit uplands.
I have to agree as well. Hard Brexit is the only real option. One reason why the UK government cannot be tied into something which can't be delievered.
Mr H is nevertheless wishing away the many obstacles that potentially lie between where we are, and getting to a hard Brexit. This may indeed be the eventual outcome - but I suggest that Mr Herdson's article is nevertheless an intriguing brew of both analysis and wishful thinking.
The only meaningful obstacle in getting a hard Brexit is reaching a deal with the rEU. The public, parliament and Conservative party would be much bigger problems for a soft Brexit target. Reaching agreement with the rEU won't be easy, I fully grant you that, but when something's in the interests of both sides, they can usually reach agreement.
The currency markets. The bond markets. The stock market. Public opinion. Divisions within the Tory Party. The House of Lords. Any electoral contests that might come along. The scots. Gibralter. Northern Ireland. The perilous state of the economy. The perilous state of the world and international relations. And, yes, the rest of the EU.
The markets are not obstacles. Their movements might have consequences but the politics will go on.
Public opinion is what is driving a hard, rather than a soft, Brexit.
There are few meaningful divisions within the Tory party on this. Clarke and Soubry might by themselves be a quarter the size of the Lib Dems but they're less than 1% of the parliamentary Tory party.
The Lords can huff and puff but they can't actually do anything of lasting consequence. The Parliament Act exists if they decide to be completely stupid and try to overturn the referendum result.
Electoral contests? It'd take eight losses to take the Tories into minority territory and MPs are better at not dying these days. Besides, with a 10+ point lead, by-elections won't prompt the same foreboding in May that they did in Major.
The Scots (or the SNP) will also huff and puff. They're not going to declare independence with oil at $50 a barrel and which would now involve a hard break with England.
Gibraltar got by for long enough with a far more hostile Spain than is there now. There might be scope for keeping it within the EU. If not, so be it.
Likewise, N Ireland might well kick up problems but it won't be on anything like the scale that have been dealt with before.
You're jumping at shadows.
I am not jumping at anything. Just bookmarking my post, just in case. And remarking upon your blind faith.
..... the battle for membership of the Single Market is nothing more than gesture politics and posturing. The decision has been made, not just by the government but by the public. It will be implemented.
In any case, as has been noted on PB several times before, Scotland is constitutionally an equal partner in the Union. She has the right to leave that voluntary union at the time of her own choosing.
Legally, she doesn't. Constitutional matters are a reserved power for the UK Parliament.
The Act of Union, which created the Union, stated that the Union would be "for ever after":
Article 1: "THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN".
The point then being that England no longer exists either - it is a nominal name for a region of the United Kingdom. Interesting.
Apropos of nothing, what's Sally Bercow up to these days. Once upon a time you couldn't open a newspaper without seeing her, and now...tumbleweed.
Are you complaining about the lack of Mrs Innocent Face in the papers?
Well, if she was able to shut up for more than 15 seconds at a time, I think she'd be rather attractive. Although her fall from grace was delicious to behold.
I have to agree as well. Hard Brexit is the only real option. One reason why the UK government cannot be tied into something which can't be delievered.
All those wanting a vote to tie the UK government into a 'soft' brexit have to answer this question. What happens if they (the EU) turn around and say 'No'?
Parliment will have instructed the government to do something which cannot be achieved, and we'll have a real crisis on our hands.
Mr H is nevertheless wishing away the many obstacles that potentially lie between where we are, and getting to a hard Brexit. This may indeed be the eventual outcome - but I suggest that Mr Herdson's article is nevertheless an intriguing brew of both analysis and wishful thinking.
The only meaningful obstacle in getting a hard Brexit is reaching a deal with the rEU. The public, parliament and Conservative party would be much bigger problems for a soft Brexit target. Reaching agreement with the rEU won't be easy, I fully grant you that, but when something's in the interests of both sides, they can usually reach agreement.
The currency markets. The bond markets. The stock market. Public opinion. Divisions within the Tory Party. The House of Lords. Any electoral contests that might come along. The scots. Gibralter. Northern Ireland. The perilous state of the economy. The perilous state of the world and international relations. And, yes, the rest of the EU.
Gibraltar got by for long enough with a far more hostile Spain than is there now. There might be scope for keeping it within the EU. If not, so be it.
I suspect Spain has more leverage while we remain in the EU.....if they were smart, they'd try carrots rather than sticks to woo Gib - but I doubt they will.....
Oh, and that 'EU seat on the UN Security Council' - good luck getting the French to give up theirs!
Oh my. That's quite a shock. I wonder how those people who hounded him out of a job last year feel.
As I always say, it isn't illegal to be a scumbag, just scummy.
Their minds won't change - he's guilty in the court of public opinion. It's just that their opinion is totally unfounded given the facts of the case. I was amazed he was even prosecuted on the evidence reportedly presented.
Apropos of nothing, what's Sally Bercow up to these days. Once upon a time you couldn't open a newspaper without seeing her, and now...tumbleweed.
Are you complaining about the lack of Mrs Innocent Face in the papers?
Well, if she was able to shut up for more than 15 seconds at a time, I think she'd be rather attractive. And her fall from grace was delicious to behold.
I think after her legal trouble, the papers moved on to focusing on the former Mrs Danczuk, as the politician wife page filler.
Oh my. That's quite a shock. I wonder how those people who hounded him out of a job last year feel.
As I always say, it isn't illegal to be a scumbag, just scummy.
Their minds won't change - he's guilty in the court of public opinion. It's just that their opinion is totally unfounded given the facts of the case. I was amazed he was even prosecuted on the evidence reportedly presented.
Apropos of nothing, what's Sally Bercow up to these days. Once upon a time you couldn't open a newspaper without seeing her, and now...tumbleweed.
Are you complaining about the lack of Mrs Innocent Face in the papers?
Well, if she was able to shut up for more than 15 seconds at a time, I think she'd be rather attractive. And her fall from grace was delicious to behold.
I think after her legal trouble, the papers moved on to focusing on the former Mrs Danczuk, as the politician wife page filler.
I could never understand the first verdict....how could you convict one and not the other if the argument was that she was too drunk to have sex and couldn't remember anything.Either they both were innocent, or they both get convicted or am I missing something?
That was my view. Unless the jury thought she consented to the other guy earlier in the evening and she was completely out of it by the time Evans arrived.
I could never understand the first verdict....how could you convict one and not the other if the argument was that she was too drunk to have sex and couldn't remember anything.Either they both were innocent, or they both get convicted or am I missing something?
That was my view. Unless the jury thought she consented to the other guy earlier in the evening and she completely out of it by the time Evans arrived.
When you recognise then that the hurdle is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - how would you prove that?
In less than one month's time, either a lot of people will owe Plato apologies, or she's going to be the most disappointed person in the Western world.
Taking that coveted title away from the almost terminally disappointed remoaner Mr Meeks?
In less than one month's time, either a lot of people will owe Plato apologies, or she's going to be the most disappointed person in the Western world.
Taking that coveted title away from the almost terminally disappointed remoaner Mr Meeks?
The Wall Street Journal is starting to pick up on the inequality of exposure over 'evidenced' breaches of law or procedure and allegations.
Wow. It seems that not much of the electorate takes the line that "Some things are more important than money."
The proportion voting for Brexit is double the proportion thinking it will make them better off.
I was looking more at the thin red line - the percentage of Leavers thinking leaving will make us worse off is only 7% (precisely the same as the number of Remainers thinking remaining will make us worse off).
We're always being told that even if Leaving makes us worse off, the "more important things" will make it worthwhile. Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
In less than one month's time, either a lot of people will owe Plato apologies, or she's going to be the most disappointed person in the Western world.
Taking that coveted title away from the almost terminally disappointed remoaner Mr Meeks?
The Wall Street Journal is starting to pick up on the inequality of exposure over 'evidenced' breaches of law or procedure and allegations.
In any case, as has been noted on PB several times before, Scotland is constitutionally an equal partner in the Union. She has the right to leave that voluntary union at the time of her own choosing.
Legally, she doesn't. Constitutional matters are a reserved power for the UK Parliament.
The Act of Union, which created the Union, stated that the Union would be "for ever after":
Article 1: "THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN".
The point then being that England no longer exists either - it is a nominal name for a region of the United Kingdom. Interesting.
Of course one Parliament cannot bind another - so England can rise from the ashes (and is currently according to that Article part of Great Britain, not the Uniited Kingdom).
They outline rather important details of the retrial. Given what is presented, I am not surprised the jury only took a couple of hours to decide.
The only thing that makes me uneasy is that we don't know who she is, so how did someone come forward with evidence about her?
Rhyl isn't a big place and the name of the individual was leaked...also I presume the plod did speak to previous partners / close associates.
The "reward" has been criticised and the way the family handled it doesn't sit comfortably with me, but I have to presume their stories checked out. I am sure the prosecution looked into it.
I am really struggling to grasp May's thinking here
Probably cold politics. Those North of the Border that feel strongly against Independence will stick with, or switch to, Ruth. The majority pissed off with English intransigence will stick with or switch to the SNP. In the short run the losers are Labour and the LibDems.
Plus it's an extra distraction May doesn't need; Brexit is looking challenging enough already .
But it is playing with fire if it fuels desire for independence. Thwarting genuinely supported independence demands often doesn't end well.
Yes, I cannot see how telling the Scots they can't do something is in any way wise. Their national character is to push back against being bossed about by the English.
In any case, as has been noted on PB several times before, Scotland is constitutionally an equal partner in the Union. She has the right to leave that voluntary union at the time of her own choosing.
Well there you have it in all its glory. Apparently the Scottish can't be pushed about, it's a voluntary Union with equal partnership and they can leave "at the time of her own choosing". Not so for England and Wales apparently also in an EU.
You are the biggest remainer on here and you post that? Seriously??
You are either a massive Hypocrite or the EU is none of those things. I think both are correct.
Eh? I fully support the UK's right to leave the EU, I just don't believe it should. Calm down!!
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds,_Kent
All those wanting a vote to tie the UK government into a 'soft' brexit have to answer this question. What happens if they (the EU) turn around and say 'No'?
Parliment will have instructed the government to do something which cannot be achieved, and we'll have a real crisis on our hands.
On the side-point about the slowness of the financial markets to understand that Brexit means Brexit, I do wonder if they still have further to go in accepting the reality. My gut feeling is that they aren't there yet.
They found a floating glass office which was moored in Belgium and they found that it was more cost-effective to shift it to the other side of Europe than convert something existing or build new on prime land.
Whilst the devil would be in the detail I'd just say that the idea shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
I am sure some people are happy the Marmite crisis is over, whereas others really won't like it.
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/786923838466588672
As I always say, it isn't illegal to be a scumbag, just scummy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37654765
It's bad enough when people address emails with a name only without say Hi [name], Good morning [name] or Hello [name] –although becoming more commonplace, particularly in the States.
Some of the newfangled comms apps (many of which succeeded in making comms more frequent, confusing and complex) are undoubtedly to blame.
A colleague of mine loved Yammer because he said he didn't then need to bother with the "how are yous" and the "best wishes" – otherwise known as the good manners that are the oil of any well-functioning organisation.
However, I don't have the same problem with my solicitors, with whom, thank goodness, I have infrequent dealings. Their letters are always hand-written and very proper.
He says that if Trump won't quit then "serious Republicans and conservatives" should persuade "someone like" Romney to stand as an independent write-in candidate, urge a vote for Evan McMullin, or both, provided McMullin agrees that his electors would vote for Romney.
I doubt many leading "neocons" will stay aboard the Trump ship now that Trump is enthusiastically dogwhistling against the "small handful of global special interests". It doesn't take much effort to decode who he is talking about. Next maybe he will talk about their choice of headgear and their renowned fear of their mothers.
"Who will rid me of this troublesome Trump?"
Clinton 44.2
Trump 43.9
They'll soon change their tune when their beer, bingo and white van running costs get more expensive, said virtually every liberal commentator out there.
You are the biggest remainer on here and you post that? Seriously??
You are either a massive Hypocrite or the EU is none of those things. I think both are correct.
Given our society is supposed to be punishment and rehabilitation, intimating any club from even giving him a trial was outrageous. Mob rule with media enabling.
Public opinion is what is driving a hard, rather than a soft, Brexit.
There are few meaningful divisions within the Tory party on this. Clarke and Soubry might by themselves be a quarter the size of the Lib Dems but they're less than 1% of the parliamentary Tory party.
The Lords can huff and puff but they can't actually do anything of lasting consequence. The Parliament Act exists if they decide to be completely stupid and try to overturn the referendum result.
Electoral contests? It'd take eight losses to take the Tories into minority territory and MPs are better at not dying these days. Besides, with a 10+ point lead, by-elections won't prompt the same foreboding in May that they did in Major.
The Scots (or the SNP) will also huff and puff. They're not going to declare independence with oil at $50 a barrel and which would now involve a hard break with England.
Gibraltar got by for long enough with a far more hostile Spain than is there now. There might be scope for keeping it within the EU. If not, so be it.
Likewise, N Ireland might well kick up problems but it won't be on anything like the scale that have been dealt with before.
You're jumping at shadows.
Article 1: "THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN".
They sure do.
Excepting Donald Trump, of course.
Mr. Wheel, sadly, I agree.
It is the same with Yes/No voters for Scotland's independence. Possibly even starker from the poll I saw. If you voted No, Scotland's economy would nose-dive; if you voted Yes, it's the sunlit uplands.
Amen to that.......
http://order-order.com/2016/10/14/michael-gove-v-tim-walker/
Oh, and that 'EU seat on the UN Security Council' - good luck getting the French to give up theirs!
They outline rather important details of the retrial. Given what is presented, I am not surprised the jury only took a couple of hours to decide.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press-buries-hillary-clintons-sins-1476401308
We're always being told that even if Leaving makes us worse off, the "more important things" will make it worthwhile. Evidently very few voters feel that way - of those who think leaving will make us worse off, 92% voted to remain.
The "reward" has been criticised and the way the family handled it doesn't sit comfortably with me, but I have to presume their stories checked out. I am sure the prosecution looked into it.
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/10/14/exclusive-audio-gennifer-flowers-bill-clinton-paid-200-abort-baby/