Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not really fair but then your prejudice rules everything these days. We used to get similar comments about Ed Miliband against DC week after week. Boring then and boring now.
Then again TSE is an Orange Book LD rather than a Tory after all so his comments are not that surprising!
No I am not.
You are pro EU and anti grammar school, you loved Cameron and the Coalition but hate May's Tory majority government, you have far more in common with David Laws and Nick Clegg than most on the Tory benches, you are a yellow in all but name
Hate Mrs May and a Tory majority? Bollocks.
I near climaxed when the Tories won a majority,
I had the opportunity to personally vote for Nick Clegg last year, I declined to do so, and voted for the Tory instead.
The Lib Dems wouldn't like my views on the deficit, and cutting it therein for starters.
I find myself confused these days when I watch PMQs. May is vastly more experienced, and infinitely more intelligent than Corbyn (as are the vast majority of MPs), yet finds herself on the defensive against him. Corbyn is the worst Labour leader in history, has a whole arsenal of ammunition to be fired against him, has spent all of his adult life on the extreme left, indulges anti-Semitism and overt anti-British and anti-Western sentiment, and yet somehow appears to have been emboldened, at least at PMQs. Cameron would have swatted away his script-led monologues with disdain.
May appears to be oddly nervous in my eyes, considering her experience of front line politics, and she has a painful self awareness that must be disconcerting for her party. Of course, none of this has any substance unless it is translated into the opinion polls, and a change of narrative from the media, and for now, May is doing brilliantly in that sense, and Corbyn woefully.
But - even a superficially electable Labour leader would be making mincemeat of the Tories on a whole variety of subjects, and fortunately for the Tories, Corbyn, or his pitiful front bench, do not have the capacity to do that.
I believe May and the Tories have an historic opportunity to consign Labour - literally - to the dustbin of British politics, but she has to believe in herself and banish the self doubt. She will never have a greater opportunity to do that while Corbyn remains Labour leader.
The thing to understand about Corbyn is that he interested in issues but he has no policies. PMQs favours the opposition on the issues, so he can ask tough questions about social care, education and so on without having to explain what priorities and compromises he would make in developing his own policy for those issues.
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not really fair but then your prejudice rules everything these days. We used to get similar comments about Ed Miliband against DC week after week. Boring then and boring now.
Then again TSE is an Orange Book LD rather than a Tory after all so his comments are not that surprising!
No I am not.
You are pro EU and anti grammar school, you loved Cameron and the Coalition but hate May's Tory majority government, you have far more in common with David Laws and Nick Clegg than most on the Tory benches, you are a yellow in all but name
Hate Mrs May and a Tory majority? Bollocks.
I near climaxed when the Tories won a majority,
I had the opportunity to personally vote for Nick Clegg last year, I declined to do so, and voted for the Tory instead.
The Lib Dems wouldn't like my views on the deficit, and cutting it therein for starters.
The Tories and LDs were in government together last year and the likes of Laws were certainly all in favour of cutting the deficit, if Leadsom had won the Tory leadership you would have been over to the yellows in five minutes but as it is it may take you a while longer to come out of the closet! Each to their own.
There are many things I could say about that, but you're a good fellow and perhaps I should just leave it at saying I think you're very wrong. I understand what you're saying, but I think you need to think about *what* you're saying.
There's a perhaps less contentious comment to make: you say religion is something they 'freely opt in to'. It would be interesting to hear the experiences of the devout on here; I think Dr Sox came to Christianity late in life, but how many were born into the faith, from being baptised at a few days old and onwards? For many people religion is not something they opt in to; it is something they are from birth. Does a Jewish boy opt-in to being Jewish when the brit milah (sp?) is performed on him?
Children often know nothing about other religions (or none) to choose differently. It is assumed they are Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish, as their parents are, and they have to opt out, which can be very difficult even if they realise there are alternatives to opt-out in to.
This is perhaps one reason why religion and culture become so devastatingly intertwined.
I was just trying to share an experience I concurrently found interesting, slightly worrying, and amusing.
For many people, their beliefs are the key part of their identity. If you attack their beliefs you are attacking who they are. It's highly disrespectful and offensive, even if it's often unthinking. People make false distinctions about racism in my view. If racism can only, literally, be about race. then any other kind of discriminatory sectarianism is fair game, on that philosophy.
Ultimately I think all of these things have to be dealt with though education, civic society and good manners. Curtailing free speech is never a good thing.
I must say that I find the modern mania for being offended extremely tiresome. It is so narcissistic and childish.
I have heard lots of people say rude things about Catholics over the years. Being Catholic is important to me but I do not and would not dream of taking offence. What is the point? If my faith is not strong enough to survive some insults, however malicious and ignorant, then it is not worth having. And sometimes the critics have a point and it is worth listening to them and working out for yourself what that means for you. Either shrug and move on or debate fiercely to show people why you think they're wrong.
But making it all about your own hurt is just pathetic.
Well, Jesus made pretty plain to His followers what they had to expect.
OT 'The Bureau' has already been acclaimed as the best ever French TV series; if you haven't caught it (iTunes USA or Amazon Prime) you are missing out....
Glad Mr. Jessop is about. Yesterday their was a discussion about how quickly autonomous cars would take over. Something for 2050 but not 2030 was the PB perceived wisdom. You might want to have a read of this article and maybe revise your views:
Until recently everything I'd read about driverless cars was to the effect that they were a bit like fusion power - they are and always will be 30 years away. This seems to have changed rather quickly. Why is that?
My guess is that, unlike cold fusion, the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now and the remaining problems are those of engineering and not science.
"the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now"
IMO it isn't, at least if you want to have reliable level-5 cars with no driver input ever (i.e. no steering wheel or other controls).
To do that you need deep AI. And that is a matter of science.
Yup. I totally agree with you, and have had countless arguments myself with people who think driverless cars that will pick them up and whizz them home from a country pub are just around the corner. As far as I'm aware, all computer-driven cars require the presence of an alert driver who is ready to, and often does, take over at a moments notice.
The final step of full autonomy is a huge one, much greater then most people realise. I'm not saying it'll never happen, but it'll be a while yet, and it'll be preceded by, for example, fully autonomous driving in simple environments such as motorways.
I haven't investigated this so may be out of line. I suspect there's a terminology problem. "Driverless Car" implies no responsibility on the part of the driver. If you termed it "Autodriver" like "Autopilot" in an aircraft it becomes the driver's tool, where the driver sets the parameters and monitors what happens and allows the software to work out the best way of controlling the vehicle that meets those parameters.
Corbyn appoints Shinner to his team. Just in case you thought his winning a few PMQs skirmishes would make him credible... He's really scared of winning so he's seeking to get down to 10% in the polls. Can you seriously imagine a general election campaign where his support of various terrorists becomes well known to the general public? It's frankly incredible how lucky Ms May is. I think she's mediocre but could win a landslide that surpasses Blair's.
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not really fair but then your prejudice rules everything these days. We used to get similar comments about Ed Miliband against DC week after week. Boring then and boring now.
Then again TSE is an Orange Book LD rather than a Tory after all so his comments are not that surprising!
No I am not.
You are pro EU and anti grammar school, you loved Cameron and the Coalition but hate May's Tory majority government, you have far more in common with David Laws and Nick Clegg than most on the Tory benches, you are a yellow in all but name
Hate Mrs May and a Tory majority? Bollocks.
I near climaxed when the Tories won a majority,
I had the opportunity to personally vote for Nick Clegg last year, I declined to do so, and voted for the Tory instead.
The Lib Dems wouldn't like my views on the deficit, and cutting it therein for starters.
The Tories and LDs were in government together last year and the likes of Laws were certainly all in favour of cutting the deficit, if Leadsom had won the Tory leadership you would have been over to the yellows in five minutes but as it is it may take you a while longer to come out of the closet! Each to their own.
For as long people like Ken Clarke and George Osborne are Tories, then my home will be the Tory Party too.
I find myself confused these days when I watch PMQs. May is vastly more experienced, and infinitely more intelligent than Corbyn (as are the vast majority of MPs), yet finds herself on the defensive against him. Corbyn is the worst Labour leader in history, has a whole arsenal of ammunition to be fired against him, has spent all of his adult life on the extreme left, indulges anti-Semitism and overt anti-British and anti-Western sentiment, and yet somehow appears to have been emboldened, at least at PMQs. Cameron would have swatted away his script-led monologues with disdain.
May appears to be oddly nervous in my eyes, considering her experience of front line politics, and she has a painful self awareness that must be disconcerting for her party. Of course, none of this has any substance unless it is translated into the opinion polls, and a change of narrative from the media, and for now, May is doing brilliantly in that sense, and Corbyn woefully.
But - even a superficially electable Labour leader would be making mincemeat of the Tories on a whole variety of subjects, and fortunately for the Tories, Corbyn, or his pitiful front bench, do not have the capacity to do that.
I believe May and the Tories have an historic opportunity to consign Labour - literally - to the dustbin of British politics, but she has to believe in herself and banish the self doubt. She will never have a greater opportunity to do that while Corbyn remains Labour leader.
The thing to understand about Corbyn is that he interested in issues but he has no policies. PMQs favours the opposition on the issues, so he can ask tough questions about social care, education and so on without having to explain what priorities and compromises he would make in developing his own policy for those issues.
I agree, and you could apply that rule to any Loto. I just wish May would believe in herself. If she did, she would tear Corbyn to pieces, like Cameron did.
Davis said that the the government is looking at the Norway/Sweden border as a possible model for how the border could work between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Interesting. I believe that means no passport checks or customs checks for individuals (unless there is some special reason to stop and check them), but customs controls for commercial goods. That means no customs union.
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not really fair but then your prejudice rules everything these days. We used to get similar comments about Ed Miliband against DC week after week. Boring then and boring now.
Then again TSE is an Orange Book LD rather than a Tory after all so his comments are not that surprising!
No I am not.
You are pro EU and anti grammar school, you loved Cameron and the Coalition but hate May's Tory majority government, you have far more in common with David Laws and Nick Clegg than most on the Tory benches, you are a yellow in all but name
Hate Mrs May and a Tory majority? Bollocks.
I near climaxed when the Tories won a majority,
I had the opportunity to personally vote for Nick Clegg last year, I declined to do so, and voted for the Tory instead.
The Lib Dems wouldn't like my views on the deficit, and cutting it therein for starters.
The Tories and LDs were in government together last year and the likes of Laws were certainly all in favour of cutting the deficit, if Leadsom had won the Tory leadership you would have been over to the yellows in five minutes but as it is it may take you a while longer to come out of the closet! Each to their own.
For as long people like Ken Clarke and George Osborne are Tories, then my home will be the Tory Party too.
Well the first is about to retire the second is on the backbenches, so looks like you and George then!
I find myself confused these days when I watch PMQs. May is vastly more experienced, and infinitely more intelligent than Corbyn (as are the vast majority of MPs), yet finds herself on the defensive against him. Corbyn is the worst Labour leader in history, has a whole arsenal of ammunition to be fired against him, has spent all of his adult life on the extreme left, indulges anti-Semitism and overt anti-British and anti-Western sentiment, and yet somehow appears to have been emboldened, at least at PMQs. Cameron would have swatted away his script-led monologues with disdain.
May appears to be oddly nervous in my eyes, considering her experience of front line politics, and she has a painful self awareness that must be disconcerting for her party. Of course, none of this has any substance unless it is translated into the opinion polls, and a change of narrative from the media, and for now, May is doing brilliantly in that sense, and Corbyn woefully.
But - even a superficially electable Labour leader would be making mincemeat of the Tories on a whole variety of subjects, and fortunately for the Tories, Corbyn, or his pitiful front bench, do not have the capacity to do that.
I believe May and the Tories have an historic opportunity to consign Labour - literally - to the dustbin of British politics, but she has to believe in herself and banish the self doubt. She will never have a greater opportunity to do that while Corbyn remains Labour leader.
The thing to understand about Corbyn is that he interested in issues but he has no policies. PMQs favours the opposition on the issues, so he can ask tough questions about social care, education and so on without having to explain what priorities and compromises he would make in developing his own policy for those issues.
I agree, and you could apply that rule to any Loto. I just wish May would believe in herself. If she did, she would tear Corbyn to pieces, like Cameron did.
I disagree on that part, actually. Ed Milliband had some quite interesting policy ideas. Some half formed and most that he was unable to articulate in a way the public could sign up to.
Interesting. I believe that means no passport checks or customs checks for individuals (unless there is so special reason to stop and check them), but customs controls for commercial goods. That means no customs union.
Nothing would symbolise the folly of Brexit more than the reinstatement of customs controls within the British Isles.
Glad Mr. Jessop is about. Yesterday their was a discussion about how quickly autonomous cars would take over. Something for 2050 but not 2030 was the PB perceived wisdom. You might want to have a read of this article and maybe revise your views:
Until recently everything I'd read about driverless cars was to the effect that they were a bit like fusion power - they are and always will be 30 years away. This seems to have changed rather quickly. Why is that?
My guess is that, unlike cold fusion, the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now and the remaining problems are those of engineering and not science.
"the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now"
IMO it isn't, at least if you want to have reliable level-5 cars with no driver input ever (i.e. no steering wheel or other controls).
To do that you need deep AI. And that is a matter of science.
Yup. I totally agree with you, and have had countless arguments myself with people who think driverless cars that will pick them up and whizz them home from a country pub are just around the corner. As far as I'm aware, all computer-driven cars require the presence of an alert driver who is ready to, and often does, take over at a moments notice.
The final step of full autonomy is a huge one, much greater then most people realise. I'm not saying it'll never happen, but it'll be a while yet, and it'll be preceded by, for example, fully autonomous driving in simple environments such as motorways.
I haven't investigated this so may be out of line. I suspect there's a terminology problem. "Driverless Car" implies no responsibility on the part of the driver. If you termed it "Autodriver" like "Autopilot" in an aircraft it becomes the driver's tool, where the driver sets the parameters and monitors what happens and allows the software to work out the best way of controlling the vehicle that meets those parameters.
There are five levels of autonomous cars, and for once they're both meaningful and useful:
Most people refer to level 5: where you could theoretically get in drunk and it'll drive you where you tell it to go with no driver interaction. I think you're referring to a level 2 or 3 car. That's what I think is a long, long way off. Edge and corner cases may literally be killers.
Until recently everything I'd read about driverless cars was to the effect that they were a bit like fusion power - they are and always will be 30 years away. This seems to have changed rather quickly. Why is that?
My guess is that, unlike cold fusion, the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now and the remaining problems are those of engineering and not science.
"the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now"
IMO it isn't, at least if you want to have reliable level-5 cars with no driver input ever (i.e. no steering wheel or other controls).
To do that you need deep AI. And that is a matter of science.
Yup. I totally agree with you, and have had countless arguments myself with people who think driverless cars that will pick them up and whizz them home from a country pub are just around the corner. As far as I'm aware, all computer-driven cars require the presence of an alert driver who is ready to, and often does, take over at a moments notice.
The final step of full autonomy is a huge one, much greater then most people realise. I'm not saying it'll never happen, but it'll be a while yet, and it'll be preceded by, for example, fully autonomous driving in simple environments such as motorways.
I haven't investigated this so may be out of line. I suspect there's a terminology problem. "Driverless Car" implies no responsibility on the part of the driver. If you termed it "Autodriver" like "Autopilot" in an aircraft it becomes the driver's tool, where the driver sets the parameters and monitors what happens and allows the software to work out the best way of controlling the vehicle that meets those parameters.
I believe Google came to the conclusion that the second of these concepts is basically a non-starter. The trouble is that it is almost impossible to expect a normal driver to stay alert and ready to take over control while not actually driving. People just work don't like that. They get bored, distracted or sleepy, and are generally in no state to take over immediately should an emergency situation occur. This is already a problem in aviation in which there is generally a lot more time to wake up and take control.
This means that it has to be the whole shebang - complete autonomous control - or nothing. That's why Google's latest effort has no steering wheel.
Did someone bring in the Right To Not Be Offended when I wasnt looking ?
To quote Salman Rushdie:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
“I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
“To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
'Any supposed right not to be offended would founder on the fact that offensiveness is subjective, and would put others' freedom of expression wholly at the mercy of the sensibilities of possible audiences, including audiences who may include some who are hypersensitive, paranoid or self-serving - or worse,'
Maybe mixing up a "right not to be offended" (which I agree doesn't exist) with the fact that people ARE offended and good manners and a degree of respect would avoid all that?
Good manners are fine. But when others seek to enforce your good manners, either with law or with violence, then I say: "Stuff it". Good manners can only be voluntary.
The problem has been that in recent times certain groups have sought to enforce good manners on others through violence, whether explicit or implicit, coupled with a lot of wailing about the hurt they've suffered. And at that point I decided that until such people learnt to understand that good manners don't come at the point of a gun, they didn't deserve my courtesy.
Good manners are, in the end, a form of kindness. But I do not offer kindness to the violent or the threatening or the bully.
Davis said that the the government is looking at the Norway/Sweden border as a possible model for how the border could work between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Interesting. I believe that means no passport checks or customs checks for individuals (unless there is some special reason to stop and check them), but customs controls for commercial goods. That means no customs union.
I could see the EU doing a Border Agreement covering the whole of Northern Ireland. It's a scheme where trusted businesses can self-certify and be checked periodically. I would expect most Northern Irish to get Irish passports for FoM .
Davis said that the the government is looking at the Norway/Sweden border as a possible model for how the border could work between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Interesting. I believe that means no passport checks or customs checks for individuals (unless there is some special reason to stop and check them), but customs controls for commercial goods. That means no customs union.
I could see the EU doing a Border Agreement covering the whole of Northern Ireland. It's a scheme where trusted businesses can self-certify and be checked periodically. I would expect most Northern Irish to get Irish passports for FoM .
Most people refer to level 5: where you could theoretically get in drunk and it'll drive you where you tell it to go with no driver interaction. I think you're referring to a level 2 or 3 car. That's what I think is a long, long way off. Edge and corner cases may literally be killers.
I'm holding out for Level 6, where I can get in too drunk to remember where I live and the car will take me there anyway.
I find myself confused these days when I watch PMQs. May is vastly more experienced, and infinitely more intelligent than Corbyn (as are the vast majority of MPs), yet finds herself on the defensive against him. Corbyn is the worst Labour leader in history, has a whole arsenal of ammunition to be fired against him, has spent all of his adult life on the extreme left, indulges anti-Semitism and overt anti-British and anti-Western sentiment, and yet somehow appears to have been emboldened, at least at PMQs. Cameron would have swatted away his script-led monologues with disdain.
May appears to be oddly nervous in my eyes, considering her experience of front line politics, and she has a painful self awareness that must be disconcerting for her party. Of course, none of this has any substance unless it is translated into the opinion polls, and a change of narrative from the media, and for now, May is doing brilliantly in that sense, and Corbyn woefully.
But - even a superficially electable Labour leader would be making mincemeat of the Tories on a whole variety of subjects, and fortunately for the Tories, Corbyn, or his pitiful front bench, do not have the capacity to do that.
I believe May and the Tories have an historic opportunity to consign Labour - literally - to the dustbin of British politics, but she has to believe in herself and banish the self doubt. She will never have a greater opportunity to do that while Corbyn remains Labour leader.
The thing to understand about Corbyn is that he interested in issues but he has no policies. PMQs favours the opposition on the issues, so he can ask tough questions about social care, education and so on without having to explain what priorities and compromises he would make in developing his own policy for those issues.
I just wish May would believe in herself. If she did, she would tear Corbyn to pieces, like Cameron did.
How would destroying Corbyn be helpful to her in any way? Jezza must be preserved in post.
Davis said that the the government is looking at the Norway/Sweden border as a possible model for how the border could work between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Interesting. I believe that means no passport checks or customs checks for individuals (unless there is some special reason to stop and check them), but customs controls for commercial goods. That means no customs union.
I could see the EU doing a Border Agreement covering the whole of Northern Ireland. It's a scheme where trusted businesses can self-certify and be checked periodically. I would expect most Northern Irish to get Irish passports for FoM .
You underestimate the stubbornness of many Ulstermen and overestimate how often many of them visit "the Free State".
People mocked Thatcher, including in her own party. It's not the mocking which will get her but the fact that she does not appear to have a clue what to do and has appointed Ministers who are second/third rate. A good leader has good strong people around them.
I hope I'm wrong because I don't see much of an alternative, either in the Tories or, God help us, in the other parties.
I expect she is forming a view, but we won't find out about it until right at the very end. I suspect she will want to opt out the lot, and then opt back in to the bits she thinks are in the UK national interest but paying a hefty fee to do so.
It will be similar to her position on Brexit: she took months to decide, and when she came out as a reluctant Remainer she did so in a well-thought through and logical speech, albeit her position of withdrawing from the ECHR but not the ECJ made no sense, and she's since backtracked on it.
A very good article. I liked the bit about the nonsense of assuming Britain could only be a rule-taker from everyone else, incapable of influencing in any way its own future (ok, the last bit is my own extrapolation ...)
I must say that I find the modern mania for being offended extremely tiresome. It is so narcissistic and childish.
I have heard lots of people say rude things about Catholics over the years. Being Catholic is important to me but I do not and would not dream of taking offence. What is the point? If my faith is not strong enough to survive some insults, however malicious and ignorant, then it is not worth having. And sometimes the critics have a point and it is worth listening to them and working out for yourself what that means for you. Either shrug and move on or debate fiercely to show people why you think they're wrong.
But making it all about your own hurt is just pathetic.
I would say good manners are an issue for those that cause the offence, not those that are offended by it.
People mocked Thatcher, including in her own party. It's not the mocking which will get her but the fact that she does not appear to have a clue what to do and has appointed Ministers who are second/third rate. A good leader has good strong people around them.
I hope I'm wrong because I don't see much of an alternative, either in the Tories or, God help us, in the other parties.
I expect she is forming a view, but we won't find out about it until right at the very end. I suspect she will want to opt out the lot, and then opt back in to the bits she thinks are in the UK national interest but paying a hefty fee to do so.
It will be similar to her position on Brexit: she took months to decide, and when she came out as a reluctant Remainer she did so in a well-thought through and logical speech, albeit her position of withdrawing from the ECHR but not the ECJ made no sense, and she's since backtracked on it.
A very good article. I liked the bit about the nonsense of assuming Britain could only be a rule-taker from everyone else, incapable of influencing in any way its own future (ok, the last bit is my own extrapolation ...)
Well there is a major European power already that ops out of being dictated to by Brussels in terms of setting the rules.
Any votes for a Russian Brexit? Perhaps Aaron Banks' new party could be called Edinaya Britannia.
Davis said that the the government is looking at the Norway/Sweden border as a possible model for how the border could work between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Interesting. I believe that means no passport checks or customs checks for individuals (unless there is some special reason to stop and check them), but customs controls for commercial goods. That means no customs union.
I could see the EU doing a Border Agreement covering the whole of Northern Ireland. It's a scheme where trusted businesses can self-certify and be checked periodically. I would expect most Northern Irish to get Irish passports for FoM .
You underestimate the stubbornness of many Ulstermen and overestimate how often many of them visit "the Free State".
That's their problem. They presumably also voted Leave. The issue for Ireland with the citizenship issue is that it isn't reciprocal. Anyone born in NI can go South, but the reverse isn't the case. Unless the UK government do a special deal. Which they might do.
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not really fair but then your prejudice rules everything these days. We used to get similar comments about Ed Miliband against DC week after week. Boring then and boring now.
Then again TSE is an Orange Book LD rather than a Tory after all so his comments are not that surprising!
No I am not.
You are pro EU and anti grammar school, you loved Cameron and the Coalition but hate May's Tory majority government, you have far more in common with David Laws and Nick Clegg than most on the Tory benches, you are a yellow in all but name
Hate Mrs May and a Tory majority? Bollocks.
I near climaxed when the Tories won a majority,
I had the opportunity to personally vote for Nick Clegg last year, I declined to do so, and voted for the Tory instead.
The Lib Dems wouldn't like my views on the deficit, and cutting it therein for starters.
The Tories and LDs were in government together last year and the likes of Laws were certainly all in favour of cutting the deficit, if Leadsom had won the Tory leadership you would have been over to the yellows in five minutes but as it is it may take you a while longer to come out of the closet! Each to their own.
For as long people like Ken Clarke and George Osborne are Tories, then my home will be the Tory Party too.
Well the first is about to retire the second is on the backbenches, so looks like you and George then!
What is the alternative to the Tories at the moment....May is deeply unimpressive, but as long as Corbyn is in situ it will be about keeping him out as far as most of the public are concerned. That said some of the Tory right and Ukip are extremely unattractive to many so I suspect at some pay point there will be an electoral price to pay.
"May appears to be oddly nervous in my eyes, considering her experience of front line politics, and she has a painful self awareness that must be disconcerting for her party. Of course, none of this has any substance unless it is translated into the opinion polls, and a change of narrative from the media, and for now, May is doing brilliantly in that sense, and Corbyn woefully.
But - even a superficially electable Labour leader would be making mincemeat of the Tories on a whole variety of subjects, and fortunately for the Tories, Corbyn, or his pitiful front bench, do not have the capacity to do that.
I believe May and the Tories have an historic opportunity to consign Labour - literally - to the dustbin of British politics, but she has to believe in herself and banish the self doubt. She will never have a greater opportunity to do that while Corbyn remains Labour leader.
The thing to understand about Corbyn is that he interested in issues but he has no policies. PMQs favours the opposition on the issues, so he can ask tough questions about social care, education and so on without having to explain what priorities and compromises he would make in developing his own policy for those issues.
I agree, and you could apply that rule to any Loto. I just wish May would believe in herself. If she did, she would tear Corbyn to pieces, like Cameron did.
I disagree on that part, actually. Ed Milliband had some quite interesting policy ideas. Some half formed and most that he was unable to articulate in a way the public could sign up to."
I'm not sure Miliband formulated any solid policies just 18 months after the 2010 election. Anyway, on the broader issue, I do agree with you that a Loto should have some advantage on a narrow issue question, but just reciting a pre-scripted monologue should be easy enough for a decent common's performer to swat away. May's demeanour betrays a lack of confidence, not ability. Perhaps the 'unelected PM' jibe rankles with her. In contrast, Corbyn has no ability, and it is all the stranger why May does not take him to pieces - comfortably - every week at PMQs.
May could do a lot worse than to watch some previous clips of Cameron at PMQs. She has it within herself to be a great and defining PM, I really do believe that, but that has to come from within. The last thing the Tories want is a comparison with Gordon Brown.
I must say that I find the modern mania for being offended extremely tiresome. It is so narcissistic and childish.
I have heard lots of people say rude things about Catholics over the years. Being Catholic is important to me but I do not and would not dream of taking offence. What is the point? If my faith is not strong enough to survive some insults, however malicious and ignorant, then it is not worth having. And sometimes the critics have a point and it is worth listening to them and working out for yourself what that means for you. Either shrug and move on or debate fiercely to show people why you think they're wrong.
But making it all about your own hurt is just pathetic.
I would say good manners are an issue for those that cause the offence, not those that are offended by it.
"May appears to be oddly nervous in my eyes, considering her experience of front line politics, and she has a painful self awareness that must be disconcerting for her party. Of course, none of this has any substance unless it is translated into the opinion polls, and a change of narrative from the media, and for now, May is doing brilliantly in that sense, and Corbyn woefully.
But - even a superficially electable Labour leader would be making mincemeat of the Tories on a whole variety of subjects, and fortunately for the Tories, Corbyn, or his pitiful front bench, do not have the capacity to do that.
I believe May and the Tories have an historic opportunity to consign Labour - literally - to the dustbin of British politics, but she has to believe in herself and banish the self doubt. She will never have a greater opportunity to do that while Corbyn remains Labour leader.
The thing to understand about Corbyn is that he interested in issues but he has no policies. PMQs favours the opposition on the issues, so he can ask tough questions about social care, education and so on without having to explain what priorities and compromises he would make in developing his own policy for those issues.
I agree, and you could apply that rule to any Loto. I just wish May would believe in herself. If she did, she would tear Corbyn to pieces, like Cameron did.
I disagree on that part, actually. Ed Milliband had some quite interesting policy ideas. Some half formed and most that he was unable to articulate in a way the public could sign up to."
I'm not sure Miliband formulated any solid policies just 18 months after the 2010 election. Anyway, on the broader issue, I do agree with you that a Loto should have some advantage on a narrow issue question, but just reciting a pre-scripted monologue should be easy enough for a decent common's performer to swat away. May's demeanour betrays a lack of confidence, not ability. Perhaps the 'unelected PM' jibe rankles with her. In contrast, Corbyn has no ability, and it is all the stranger why May does not take him to pieces - comfortably - every week at PMQs.
May could do a lot worse than to watch some previous clips of Cameron at PMQs. She has it within herself to be a great and defining PM, I really do believe that, but that has to come from within. The last thing the Tories want is a comparison with Gordon Brown.
Did someone bring in the Right To Not Be Offended when I wasnt looking ?
To quote Salman Rushdie:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
“I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
“To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
'Any supposed right not to be offended would founder on the fact that offensiveness is subjective, and would put others' freedom of expression wholly at the mercy of the sensibilities of possible audiences, including audiences who may include some who are hypersensitive, paranoid or self-serving - or worse,'
Maybe mixing up a "right not to be offended" (which I agree doesn't exist) with the fact that people ARE offended and good manners and a degree of respect would avoid all that?
Good manners are fine. But when others seek to enforce your good manners, either with law or with violence, then I say: "Stuff it". Good manners can only be voluntary.
The problem has been that in recent times certain groups have sought to enforce good manners on others through violence, whether explicit or implicit, coupled with a lot of wailing about the hurt they've suffered. And at that point I decided that until such people learnt to understand that good manners don't come at the point of a gun, they didn't deserve my courtesy.
Good manners are, in the end, a form of kindness. But I do not offer kindness to the violent or the threatening or the bully.
Just to make this clear: are you in favour of what might be classed 'full' free speech, where people can say anything about anything or anyone without repercussions, or do you think it should be limited in any way?
"May appears to be oddly nervous in my eyes, considering her experience of front line politics, and she has a painful self awareness that must be disconcerting for her party. Of course, none of this has any substance unless it is translated into the opinion polls, and a change of narrative from the media, and for now, May is doing brilliantly in that sense, and Corbyn woefully.
But - even a superficially electable Labour leader would be making mincemeat of the Tories on a whole variety of subjects, and fortunately for the Tories, Corbyn, or his pitiful front bench, do not have the capacity to do that.
I believe May and the Tories have an historic opportunity to consign Labour - literally - to the dustbin of British politics, but she has to believe in herself and banish the self doubt. She will never have a greater opportunity to do that while Corbyn remains Labour leader.
The thing to understand about Corbyn is that he interested in issues but he has no policies. PMQs favours the opposition on the issues, so he can ask tough questions about social care, education and so on without having to explain what priorities and compromises he would make in developing his own policy for those issues.
I agree, and you could apply that rule to any Loto. I just wish May would believe in herself. If she did, she would tear Corbyn to pieces, like Cameron did.
I disagree on that part, actually. Ed Milliband had some quite interesting policy ideas. Some half formed and most that he was unable to articulate in a way the public could sign up to."
I'm not sure Miliband formulated any solid policies just 18 months after the 2010 election. Anyway, on the broader issue, I do agree with you that a Loto should have some advantage on a narrow issue question, but just reciting a pre-scripted monologue should be easy enough for a decent common's performer to swat away. May's demeanour betrays a lack of confidence, not ability. Perhaps the 'unelected PM' jibe rankles with her. In contrast, Corbyn has no ability, and it is all the stranger why May does not take him to pieces - comfortably - every week at PMQs.
May could do a lot worse than to watch some previous clips of Cameron at PMQs. She has it within herself to be a great and defining PM, I really do believe that, but that has to come from within. The last thing the Tories want is a comparison with Gordon Brown.
The Commission is set to be appointed as negotiator for the EU (ie Michel Barnier), but with minders from the national governments. The European Parliament looks likely to be shut out completely as things stand.
The biggest point is the last point. The EU doesn't seem to be drawing up a strategy, which means that its strategy is emerging by default. That's bad news for everyone who wants Brexit to happen in an orderly manner, albeit only too predictable.
I would say Barnier has a coherent strategy on behalf of the EU Commission, but he's a hired hand. It's the European Council representing national governments that will call the shots. As the keeper of the WIP text for the treaty Barnier will have a lot of influence, especially if he can keep in with Didier Seeuws, who will be the Brexit manager for the EU Council.
The EU parliament will ratify the deal. Verhofstadt's job is to ensure there are no upsets.
The UK MEPs will also get a vote on the terms of the Brexit deal.
(Snip)She has it within herself to be a great and defining PM, I really do believe that, but that has to come from within. (Snip).
May's position in the pantheon of PM's will be binary: either near the top or near the bottom: there will be no middle ground. Sadly for her, where she ends up will not depend on what might be classed as 'normal' politics: it will be on Brexit, the success of which is somewhat out of her hands.
I hope she'll be a great PM, up there with Thatcher and Eden (*). But so far I've seen little publicly to back up that hope.
This means that it has to be the whole shebang - complete autonomous control - or nothing. That's why Google's latest effort has no steering wheel.
I don't think it is right to say it has to be the whole shebang or nothing. In fact, I can't see how the 'whole shebang' is possible. What if you're going to a wedding in the country where you have to park in a field? Or there's a flood on the road and you have to go slightly off the road to avoid it? Or the police are directing you to carry out what would otherwise be an illegal manoeuvre, such as going the wrong way down what the computer thinks is a one-way street?
Uncommon though these situations no doubt are, automating that last half a percent of edge cases is going to be extremely difficult. At the very least it will require a complete rethink of diversion signs and traffic control.
(I agree that relying on a human driver to intervene in an emergency is a non-starter, for the reasons you give).
I rarely listen to PMQs, but the PMs rarely answer a question when I do. May does seem better in this regard than Cameron, but it doesn't win those all important 'points' that lobby journalists dearly love.
MPs on her own side having an issue ? Maybe - but I'd take a 20 pt poll lead & my leader being perceived to be poor at PMQs any day of the week, rather than the inverse.
Mr. Jessop, I'm surprised (shocked even) you're disgusted. You can convert to or from a religion, but you can't convert your race. That's all I'm saying. The unifying aspect of Islam is an idea, it's not a skin colour or ethnic grouping.
I'm sadly unsurprised that that's the view you take. Like the people who attempt to redefine Islamophobia, you try to pull a blanket over it by playing it down.
It's a crass, stupid point to make. Then again, you're fortunate that the chances are you'll never become a target of such abuse.
The irony of accusing MD of trying to shut down debate when you're making emotional, irrational and aggressive posts against someone making a reasonable, calm and polite point is somewhat piquant.
Unfortunately, I agree, to a point. JJ is not being aggressive, but is interpreting a reasoned stance making quite clear judging all members of a religion for that religion is wrong but that one must be able to criticise the religion itself for its ideas, in a way which warps its meaning considerably.
Interpreting others ideas as equivalent to something genuinely heinous is counter productivem since it leads to people normalising the heinous, which is the opposite of the intention I'm sure. Part and parcel of being offended on peoples' behalfs anbd making the right ot not be offended the most sacred right of all, it leads to more problems than it solves.
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not really fair but then your prejudice rules everything these days. We used to get similar comments about Ed Miliband against DC week after week. Boring then and boring now.
Then again TSE is an Orange Book LD rather than a Tory after all so his comments are not that surprising!
No I am not.
You are pro EU and anti grammar school, you loved Cameron and the Coalition but hate May's Tory majority government, you have far more in common with David Laws and Nick Clegg than most on the Tory benches, you are a yellow in all but name
But many would and hav argued that Laws and Clegg are Blue in all but name, so things come full circle.
(Snip)She has it within herself to be a great and defining PM, I really do believe that, but that has to come from within. (Snip).
May's position in the pantheon of PM's will be binary: either near the top or near the bottom: there will be no middle ground. Sadly for her, where she ends up will not depend on what might be classed as 'normal' politics: it will be on Brexit, the success of which is somewhat out of her hands.
I hope she'll be a great PM, up there with Thatcher and Eden (*). But so far I've seen little publicly to back up that hope.
The jury is very much out.
(*) Only joking
At PMQs, May gives the impression of someone going out for a stroll in leafy Surrey - yet still expecting a grizzly bear behind every tree. I suspect she will relax, over time. We'll know that when she starts showing a deft touch with humour - which is a way off yet.
From what I hear out and about, most people are prepared to cut Theresa May plenty of slack. With Brexit, she was thrown a hopsital pass (albeit, she was standing on the line shouting "Me! Get the ball TO ME!!!"). If Brexit goes horribly wrong, it will partially reflect on her, but also her team of negotiators - and, as far as the tabloid press will be concerned, it will mostly be down to the EUrocrats being beastly and showing why it was a bloody good idea to leave.
Plus, who on the Opposition benches is going to be making the case that she should take the blame? Who has a clear Plan B?
The Commission is set to be appointed as negotiator for the EU (ie Michel Barnier), but with minders from the national governments. The European Parliament looks likely to be shut out completely as things stand.
The biggest point is the last point. The EU doesn't seem to be drawing up a strategy, which means that its strategy is emerging by default. That's bad news for everyone who wants Brexit to happen in an orderly manner, albeit only too predictable.
I would say Barnier has a coherent strategy on behalf of the EU Commission, but he's a hired hand. It's the European Council representing national governments that will call the shots. As the keeper of the WIP text for the treaty Barnier will have a lot of influence, especially if he can keep in with Didier Seeuws, who will be the Brexit manager for the EU Council.
The EU parliament will ratify the deal. Verhofstadt's job is to ensure there are no upsets.
The UK MEPs will also get a vote on the terms of the Brexit deal.
Will Farage and his band of merry rogues in the European Parliament have to vote against the settlement come what may? How can they fight domestic politics saying "Yep, that deal looks fine to us..."?
Mr. Jessop, I'm surprised (shocked even) you're disgusted. You can convert to or from a religion, but you can't convert your race. That's all I'm saying. The unifying aspect of Islam is an idea, it's not a skin colour or ethnic grouping.
I'm sadly unsurprised that that's the view you take. Like the people who attempt to redefine Islamophobia, you try to pull a blanket over it by playing it down.
It's a crass, stupid point to make. Then again, you're fortunate that the chances are you'll never become a target of such abuse.
The irony of accusing MD of trying to shut down debate when you're making emotional, irrational and aggressive posts against someone making a reasonable, calm and polite point is somewhat piquant.
Unfortunately, I agree, to a point. JJ is not being aggressive, but is interpreting a reasoned stance making quite clear judging all members of a religion for that religion is wrong but that one must be able to criticise the religion itself for its ideas, in a way which warps its meaning considerably.
Interpreting others ideas as equivalent to something genuinely heinous is counter productivem since it leads to people normalising the heinous, which is the opposite of the intention I'm sure. Part and parcel of being offended on peoples' behalfs anbd making the right ot not be offended the most sacred right of all, it leads to more problems than it solves.
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not really fair but then your prejudice rules everything these days. We used to get similar comments about Ed Miliband against DC week after week. Boring then and boring now.
Then again TSE is an Orange Book LD rather than a Tory after all so his comments are not that surprising!
No I am not.
You are pro EU and anti grammar school, you loved Cameron and the Coalition but hate May's Tory majority government, you have far more in common with David Laws and Nick Clegg than most on the Tory benches, you are a yellow in all but name
But many would and hav argued that Laws and Clegg are Blue in all but name, so things come full circle.
Davis said that the the government is looking at the Norway/Sweden border as a possible model for how the border could work between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Interesting. I believe that means no passport checks or customs checks for individuals (unless there is some special reason to stop and check them), but customs controls for commercial goods. That means no customs union.
I could see the EU doing a Border Agreement covering the whole of Northern Ireland. It's a scheme where trusted businesses can self-certify and be checked periodically. I would expect most Northern Irish to get Irish passports for FoM .
You underestimate the stubbornness of many Ulstermen and overestimate how often many of them visit "the Free State".
At the moment the shopping traffic is all one way, to Newry's benefit.
I see the religion thread continued for the two hours I was absent. All I can say is that, regardless of whether one is atheist, Christian, Muslim or holds any other religious position, surely we can all agree that all of us, each and every one, should buy my book Kingdom Asunder?
Davis said that the the government is looking at the Norway/Sweden border as a possible model for how the border could work between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Interesting. I believe that means no passport checks or customs checks for individuals (unless there is some special reason to stop and check them), but customs controls for commercial goods. That means no customs union.
I could see the EU doing a Border Agreement covering the whole of Northern Ireland. It's a scheme where trusted businesses can self-certify and be checked periodically. I would expect most Northern Irish to get Irish passports for FoM .
You underestimate the stubbornness of many Ulstermen and overestimate how often many of them visit "the Free State".
At the moment the shopping traffic is all one way, to Newry's benefit.
We're doing quite nicely here in sunny* Enniskillen
Good manners are fine. But when others seek to enforce your good manners, either with law or with violence, then I say: "Stuff it". Good manners can only be voluntary.
The problem has been that in recent times certain groups have sought to enforce good manners on others through violence, whether explicit or implicit, coupled with a lot of wailing about the hurt they've suffered. And at that point I decided that until such people learnt to understand that good manners don't come at the point of a gun, they didn't deserve my courtesy.
Good manners are, in the end, a form of kindness. But I do not offer kindness to the violent or the threatening or the bully.
Just to make this clear: are you in favour of what might be classed 'full' free speech, where people can say anything about anything or anyone without repercussions, or do you think it should be limited in any way?
If so, where are the boundaries?
I would like to see near-untrammelled free speech, including the right to insult.
For me, the boundary is clear. Incitement to actual physical harm, or harassment that can be reasonably expected to lead to actual self-harm in the target. The latter is a bit difficult to define for law enforcement terms, but we should not let people bully the fragile to the point of suicide or other self-harm.
That said, I for one would like to see people encouraged to be more mentally robust - stick and stones etc ...
Did someone bring in the Right To Not Be Offended when I wasnt looking ?
To quote Salman Rushdie:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
“I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
“To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
'Any supposed right not to be offended would founder on the fact that offensiveness is subjective, and would put others' freedom of expression wholly at the mercy of the sensibilities of possible audiences, including audiences who may include some who are hypersensitive, paranoid or self-serving - or worse,'
Maybe mixing up a "right not to be offended" (which I agree doesn't exist) with the fact that people ARE offended and good manners and a degree of respect would avoid all that?
Good manners are fine. But when others seek to enforce your good manners, either with law or with violence, then I say: "Stuff it". Good manners can only be voluntary.
The problem has been that in recent times certain groups have sought to enforce good manners on others through violence, whether explicit or implicit, coupled with a lot of wailing about the hurt they've suffered. And at that point I decided that until such people learnt to understand that good manners don't come at the point of a gun, they didn't deserve my courtesy.
Good manners are, in the end, a form of kindness. But I do not offer kindness to the violent or the threatening or the bully.
Just to make this clear: are you in favour of what might be classed 'full' free speech, where people can say anything about anything or anyone without repercussions, or do you think it should be limited in any way?
Davis said that the the government is looking at the Norway/Sweden border as a possible model for how the border could work between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Interesting. I believe that means no passport checks or customs checks for individuals (unless there is some special reason to stop and check them), but customs controls for commercial goods. That means no customs union.
I could see the EU doing a Border Agreement covering the whole of Northern Ireland. It's a scheme where trusted businesses can self-certify and be checked periodically. I would expect most Northern Irish to get Irish passports for FoM .
You underestimate the stubbornness of many Ulstermen and overestimate how often many of them visit "the Free State".
At the moment the shopping traffic is all one way, to Newry's benefit.
We're doing quite nicely here in sunny* Enniskillen
*May not be as sunny as advertised
It looks like its on the edge of a perpetual potential flood from the wikipedia photo !
Did someone bring in the Right To Not Be Offended when I wasnt looking ?
To quote Salman Rushdie:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
“I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
“To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
'Any supposed right not to be offended would founder on the fact that offensiveness is subjective, and would put others' freedom of expression wholly at the mercy of the sensibilities of possible audiences, including audiences who may include some who are hypersensitive, paranoid or self-serving - or worse,'
Maybe mixing up a "right not to be offended" (which I agree doesn't exist) with the fact that people ARE offended and good manners and a degree of respect would avoid all that?
Good manners are fine. But when others seek to enforce your good manners, either with law or with violence, then I say: "Stuff it". Good manners can only be voluntary.
The problem has been that in recent times certain groups have sought to enforce good manners on others through violence, whether explicit or implicit, coupled with a lot of wailing about the hurt they've suffered. And at that point I decided that until such people learnt to understand that good manners don't come at the point of a gun, they didn't deserve my courtesy.
Good manners are, in the end, a form of kindness. But I do not offer kindness to the violent or the threatening or the bully.
Just to make this clear: are you in favour of what might be classed 'full' free speech, where people can say anything about anything or anyone without repercussions, or do you think it should be limited in any way?
If so, where are the boundaries?
When you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?
Yes, add that to my list, (but only when there is no fire, of course). In a way, it is an incitement to cause real harm if the call is made whilst knowing there is no fire.
I'll have faith in autonomous vehicles once they've navigated, without incident, a full year around the roads of North Devon.
Getting them to work on a sunny day in California is merely a baby step.
The BBC video of the Uber test vehicles showed it was miles away from being able to be autonomous. It was more like extreme driver assist.
The problem with extreme driver assist is that driver does not pay attention and then when something happens that requires them to do something they don't react quickly enough.
Mind you adaptive cruise control (keeping you at the same speed as the car in front) and lane assist (keeping you in the middleish of the lane) are nice features I cannot live without.
Good manners are fine. But when others seek to enforce your good manners, either with law or with violence, then I say: "Stuff it". Good manners can only be voluntary.
The problem has been that in recent times certain groups have sought to enforce good manners on others through violence, whether explicit or implicit, coupled with a lot of wailing about the hurt they've suffered. And at that point I decided that until such people learnt to understand that good manners don't come at the point of a gun, they didn't deserve my courtesy.
Good manners are, in the end, a form of kindness. But I do not offer kindness to the violent or the threatening or the bully.
Just to make this clear: are you in favour of what might be classed 'full' free speech, where people can say anything about anything or anyone without repercussions, or do you think it should be limited in any way?
If so, where are the boundaries?
I would like to see near-untrammelled free speech, including the right to insult.
For me, the boundary is clear. Incitement to actual physical harm, or harassment that can be reasonably expected to lead to actual self-harm in the target. The latter is a bit difficult to define for law enforcement terms, but we should not let people bully the fragile to the point of suicide or other self-harm.
That said, I for one would like to see people encouraged to be more mentally robust - stick and stones etc ...
As I said earlier, I was not offended by the comments the lady made. However I found it interesting that if the terms were just slightly different, she herself would almost certainly have been offended (it was not tame stuff).
Robustness is good. However if someone is consistently told something negative, it is very difficult to be robust.
We had a charming, silver tongued smoothie in charge for six years, of course he was better at PR spiel than a straight laced vicars daughter... who cares?!
Davis said that the the government is looking at the Norway/Sweden border as a possible model for how the border could work between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Interesting. I believe that means no passport checks or customs checks for individuals (unless there is some special reason to stop and check them), but customs controls for commercial goods. That means no customs union.
I could see the EU doing a Border Agreement covering the whole of Northern Ireland. It's a scheme where trusted businesses can self-certify and be checked periodically. I would expect most Northern Irish to get Irish passports for FoM .
You underestimate the stubbornness of many Ulstermen and overestimate how often many of them visit "the Free State".
At the moment the shopping traffic is all one way, to Newry's benefit.
We're doing quite nicely here in sunny* Enniskillen
*May not be as sunny as advertised
It looks like its on the edge of a perpetual potential flood from the wikipedia photo !
Good manners are fine. But when others seek to enforce your good manners, either with law or with violence, then I say: "Stuff it". Good manners can only be voluntary.
The problem has been that in recent times certain groups have sought to enforce good manners on others through violence, whether explicit or implicit, coupled with a lot of wailing about the hurt they've suffered. And at that point I decided that until such people learnt to understand that good manners don't come at the point of a gun, they didn't deserve my courtesy.
Good manners are, in the end, a form of kindness. But I do not offer kindness to the violent or the threatening or the bully.
Just to make this clear: are you in favour of what might be classed 'full' free speech, where people can say anything about anything or anyone without repercussions, or do you think it should be limited in any way?
If so, where are the boundaries?
I would like to see near-untrammelled free speech, including the right to insult.
For me, the boundary is clear. Incitement to actual physical harm, or harassment that can be reasonably expected to lead to actual self-harm in the target. The latter is a bit difficult to define for law enforcement terms, but we should not let people bully the fragile to the point of suicide or other self-harm.
That said, I for one would like to see people encouraged to be more mentally robust - stick and stones etc ...
As I said earlier, I was not offended by the comments the lady made. However I found it interesting that if the terms were just slightly different, she herself would almost certainly have been offended (it was not tame stuff).
Robustness is good. However if someone is consistently told something negative, it is very difficult to be robust.
There is also defamation and slander to consider.
Defamation in the technical sense of libel and slander is a different matter though. That is about reputational damage and nothing to do with being offended.
I must say that I find the modern mania for being offended extremely tiresome. It is so narcissistic and childish.
I have heard lots of people say rude things about Catholics over the years. Being Catholic is important to me but I do not and would not dream of taking offence. What is the point? If my faith is not strong enough to survive some insults, however malicious and ignorant, then it is not worth having. And sometimes the critics have a point and it is worth listening to them and working out for yourself what that means for you. Either shrug and move on or debate fiercely to show people why you think they're wrong.
But making it all about your own hurt is just pathetic.
I would say good manners are an issue for those that cause the offence, not those that are offended by it.
Self esteem is for ourselves alone, though.
Thinking about this and in light of further examples in the discussion, I don't think it is entirely for ourselves alone. Society has a role to play here, I think, in calling out those that fail to respect others or bully others. As an example, PB is fairly easy going on difference of opinion but will sanction those that are excessively offensive. I approve of both - that PB is slow to act, but will do so if necessary.
What I think we agree on is that the State shouldn't be moderating people's behaviour except in limited ways that avoid specific harm being done
Listening to David Davis at the select committee he comes over as honest, courteous, and difficult not to like but he stone walls better than any English batsman.
He is the most impressive of the Brexit three but the complexities of leaving the EU are indeed immense, though that is not a reason to default on the will of the people
My wife and I have become increasingly concerned at the non stop diet of misery that is Sky News these days. The appalling disaster that is Aleppo, the continuing war in Yemen, and the constant appeals for the suffering with particular emphasis on images of young children in agony is beyond pain and the frustration that despite all this awfulness we can do absolutely nothing individually, or even as a Country, to prevent and stop it.
So many say something has to be done but just how is it that possible with Russia and Syria defying world opinion and that useless of all organation the UN paralysed.
We went to our grandchildren's nativity concert at their school yesterday and it was so beautiful with the children so engaged and it made you so protective towards all of them and yet disturbed by so much suffering by so many innocents.
We believe Sky has a responsibility to report these horrors but do they ever think just how many young innocent children in our Country see these images and recoil in horror and get very frightened. They do need to be more responsible.
We have found ourselves tuning to BBC much more often where they do report the suffering in a more measured way
Mr. NorthWales, must admit the black comedy of people banging on about 'doing something' (sometimes the same people who think 'laws must be legal' and approved by the UN, giving China and Russia veto powers) is faintly ridiculous. The Sun's political editor (I think) was saying much the same on the Sky paper review last night, claiming we could have more sanctions or something and not resort to military action.
I fear he's living in fantasyland. It's military action or nothing, in terms of effectiveness. Russia's already under severe sanctions.
Not squeamish but I was surprised (unsure which channel) when a report featuring starving babies wasn't preceded by the usually overused 'scenes some viewers may find distressing' warning the other day.
We had a charming, silver tongued smoothie in charge for six years, of course he was better at PR spiel than a straight laced vicars daughter... who cares?!
And, to continue, even he couldn't sell the EU to the public. I wasn't here at the time of the result, but did say before that I thought Cameron having all the levers of power at his disposal, and the status of PM meant my side had the odds stacked against them to an almighty degree.
Mr. Isam, I agree entirely. For a long time I expected the polls to swing clearly to Remain, but that campaign was a textbook case of how to bugger up a campaign. [Not that Leave was great either].
We had a charming, silver tongued smoothie in charge for six years, of course he was better at PR spiel than a straight laced vicars daughter... who cares?!
And, to continue, even he couldn't sell the EU to the public. I wasn't here at the time of the result, but did say before that I thought Cameron having all the levers of power at his disposal, and the status of PM meant my side had the odds stacked against them to an almighty degree.
Amazing that Leave won, absolutely incredible
Ultimately many on the Remain side were trying to sell something they didn't really believe in.
We had a charming, silver tongued smoothie in charge for six years, of course he was better at PR spiel than a straight laced vicars daughter... who cares?!
And, to continue, even he couldn't sell the EU to the public. I wasn't here at the time of the result, but did say before that I thought Cameron having all the levers of power at his disposal, and the status of PM meant my side had the odds stacked against them to an almighty degree.
Amazing that Leave won, absolutely incredible
Ultimately many on the Remain side were trying to sell something they didn't really believe in.
We beLEAVEd.
Time to watch Miracle on 34th Street again I think.
Mr. NorthWales, must admit the black comedy of people banging on about 'doing something' (sometimes the same people who think 'laws must be legal' and approved by the UN, giving China and Russia veto powers) is faintly ridiculous. The Sun's political editor (I think) was saying much the same on the Sky paper review last night, claiming we could have more sanctions or something and not resort to military action.
I fear he's living in fantasyland. It's military action or nothing, in terms of effectiveness. Russia's already under severe sanctions.
Not squeamish but I was surprised (unsure which channel) when a report featuring starving babies wasn't preceded by the usually overused 'scenes some viewers may find distressing' warning the other day.
I don't comment much on Syria. It's a country I know somewhat. I have friends there and it's very upsetting.
It's complicated, of course, but there are two things I hold to. There is no point intervening unless you make the situation better, which is why I also opposed the Iraq invasion. I realise that means abandoning people there to their fate. It doesn't make me feel good at all.
The other thing is that those that carry out the atrocity are responsible for it. The Syrian government is responsible for its soldiers killing civilians in cold blood. Vladimir Putin is responsible for the destruction and mass killings caused by his airforce bombings. We are not responsible. The US isn't responsible. We have done other things, but not those.
Mr. 43, hope the people you know are ok. I agree with that. It's one of the reasons we should beef up our military. Not only to defend our territory, but so that if we do need to get into action we can do to maximum effect.
Good manners are fine. But when others seek to enforce your good manners, either with law or with violence, then I say: "Stuff it". Good manners can only be voluntary.
The problem has been that in recent times certain groups have sought to enforce good manners on others through violence, whether explicit or implicit, coupled with a lot of wailing about the hurt they've suffered. And at that point I decided that until such people learnt to understand that good manners don't come at the point of a gun, they didn't deserve my courtesy.
Good manners are, in the end, a form of kindness. But I do not offer kindness to the violent or the threatening or the bully.
Just to make this clear: are you in favour of what might be classed 'full' free speech, where people can say anything about anything or anyone without repercussions, or do you think it should be limited in any way?
If so, where are the boundaries?
I would like to see near-untrammelled free speech, including the right to insult.
For me, the boundary is clear. Incitement to actual physical harm, or harassment that can be reasonably expected to lead to actual self-harm in the target. The latter is a bit difficult to define for law enforcement terms, but we should not let people bully the fragile to the point of suicide or other self-harm.
That said, I for one would like to see people encouraged to be more mentally robust - stick and stones etc ...
As I said earlier, I was not offended by the comments the lady made. However I found it interesting that if the terms were just slightly different, she herself would almost certainly have been offended (it was not tame stuff).
Robustness is good. However if someone is consistently told something negative, it is very difficult to be robust.
There is also defamation and slander to consider.
Defamation in the technical sense of libel and slander is a different matter though. That is about reputational damage and nothing to do with being offended.
It was in reference to TimT's definition of free speech I was replying to.
Mr. Isam, I agree entirely. For a long time I expected the polls to swing clearly to Remain, but that campaign was a textbook case of how to bugger up a campaign. [Not that Leave was great either].
I had my biggest ever political bet on Leave at odds of 2.44 an hour before Jo Cox was murdered...
In so far as the rest of the country pays attention (not at all), they are indeed extending Mrs May the benefit of the doubt.....and then some - she's sixty six points ahead of Corbyn among the over 65s.....you know, the ones who go out and vote.....
I felt nervous putting (for PB) small sums on Maldonado and Alonso to lead lap 1 in the 2012 Spanish Grand Prix, despite them starting 1 and 2 and having odds of about 6 each [Hamilton was fastest in qualifying but was disqualified for a fuel irregularity].
I'll have faith in autonomous vehicles once they've navigated, without incident, a full year around the roads of North Devon.
Getting them to work on a sunny day in California is merely a baby step.
The BBC video of the Uber test vehicles showed it was miles away from being able to be autonomous. It was more like extreme driver assist.
The problem with extreme driver assist is that driver does not pay attention and then when something happens that requires them to do something they don't react quickly enough.
Mind you adaptive cruise control (keeping you at the same speed as the car in front) and lane assist (keeping you in the middleish of the lane) are nice features I cannot live without.
It'll be interesting to see if level 3 or 4 cars will require the equivalent of a deadman's handle; something that has to be pressed / held every so often to show that the driver is alert.
Mr. NorthWales, must admit the black comedy of people banging on about 'doing something' (sometimes the same people who think 'laws must be legal' and approved by the UN, giving China and Russia veto powers) is faintly ridiculous. The Sun's political editor (I think) was saying much the same on the Sky paper review last night, claiming we could have more sanctions or something and not resort to military action.
I fear he's living in fantasyland. It's military action or nothing, in terms of effectiveness. Russia's already under severe sanctions.
Not squeamish but I was surprised (unsure which channel) when a report featuring starving babies wasn't preceded by the usually overused 'scenes some viewers may find distressing' warning the other day.
I don't comment much on Syria. It's a country I know somewhat. I have friends there and it's very upsetting.
It's complicated, of course, but there are two things I hold to. There is no point intervening unless you make the situation better, which is why I also opposed the Iraq invasion. I realise that means abandoning people there to their fate. It doesn't make me feel good at all.
The other thing is that those that carry out the atrocity are responsible for it. The Syrian government is responsible for its soldiers killing civilians in cold blood. Vladimir Putin is responsible for the destruction and mass killings caused by his airforce bombings. We are not responsible. The US isn't responsible. We have done other things, but not those.
I think that these are really important points. It is delusional to either think we are responsible for all the evils of the world or capable of stopping them despite so many of the debates in the HoC being conducted on such a premise.
Those responsible should ideally be held to account but that is all too frequently beyond our powers too. What we can and should do is express our disgust.
I felt nervous putting (for PB) small sums on Maldonado and Alonso to lead lap 1 in the 2012 Spanish Grand Prix, despite them starting 1 and 2 and having odds of about 6 each [Hamilton was fastest in qualifying but was disqualified for a fuel irregularity].
He surely didn't fill it with diesel instead of unleaded!
I felt nervous putting (for PB) small sums on Maldonado and Alonso to lead lap 1 in the 2012 Spanish Grand Prix, despite them starting 1 and 2 and having odds of about 6 each [Hamilton was fastest in qualifying but was disqualified for a fuel irregularity].
Either Leave or Remain would win though, so the outsider of the two isn't that short in this context. Whereas any one of ~ 20 drivers could theoretically lead the Spanish Grand Prix - even though Rosberg in this context was (I assume) the most likely winner.
I must say that I find the modern mania for being offended extremely tiresome. It is so narcissistic and childish.
I have heard lots of people say rude things about Catholics over the years. Being Catholic is important to me but I do not and would not dream of taking offence. What is the point? If my faith is not strong enough to survive some insults, however malicious and ignorant, then it is not worth having. And sometimes the critics have a point and it is worth listening to them and working out for yourself what that means for you. Either shrug and move on or debate fiercely to show people why you think they're wrong.
But making it all about your own hurt is just pathetic.
I would say good manners are an issue for those that cause the offence, not those that are offended by it.
Self esteem is for ourselves alone, though.
Thinking about this and in light of further examples in the discussion, I don't think it is entirely for ourselves alone. Society has a role to play ...
True self esteem is almost entirely internally generated, and it is very robust. If we gain our sense of self from external sources (the praise of others, promotions, bonuses, success in exams or other life pursuits) then that is not real self esteem.
That said, I admit that outside sources can inhibit the development of self esteem. I'd put the emphasis or where culture and peer pressure affect manners more locally than society though - say at the community level.
Lest I have not been clear, I am all for good manners. But, for me, letting insults upset me seems a very pointless activity. The only person adversely affected by me being insulted is me. Why would I do that to myself?
Mr. 43, hope the people you know are ok. I agree with that. It's one of the reasons we should beef up our military. Not only to defend our territory, but so that if we do need to get into action we can do to maximum effect.
They are in Damascus, not Aleppo, thank goodness. It's a mad country.
Mr. NorthWales, must admit the black comedy of people banging on about 'doing something' (sometimes the same people who think 'laws must be legal' and approved by the UN, giving China and Russia veto powers) is faintly ridiculous. The Sun's political editor (I think) was saying much the same on the Sky paper review last night, claiming we could have more sanctions or something and not resort to military action.
I fear he's living in fantasyland. It's military action or nothing, in terms of effectiveness. Russia's already under severe sanctions.
Not squeamish but I was surprised (unsure which channel) when a report featuring starving babies wasn't preceded by the usually overused 'scenes some viewers may find distressing' warning the other day.
I don't comment much on Syria. It's a country I know somewhat. I have friends there and it's very upsetting.
It's complicated, of course, but there are two things I hold to. There is no point intervening unless you make the situation better, which is why I also opposed the Iraq invasion. I realise that means abandoning people there to their fate. It doesn't make me feel good at all.
The other thing is that those that carry out the atrocity are responsible for it. The Syrian government is responsible for its soldiers killing civilians in cold blood. Vladimir Putin is responsible for the destruction and mass killings caused by his airforce bombings. We are not responsible. The US isn't responsible. We have done other things, but not those.
I think that these are really important points. It is delusional to either think we are responsible for all the evils of the world or capable of stopping them despite so many of the debates in the HoC being conducted on such a premise.
Yep - Blair got carried away after the success in Sierra Leone - which was within our capabilities - it will be interesting to see how European defence spending evolves with President Trump - who on this aspect - European freeloading, I have some sympathy....
And I dislike short odds bets, although without good old No Safety Car this year would've been even redder.
Some chap was saying the 2017 regulations are the biggest changes for decades. Hopefully that'll present some profitable outcomes early on. If they look competitive (top 3, say) I'll be looking to back McLaren in Australia, where they historically do well (circuit nature really suits the car, as a rule) then back someone else at the next race, but we'll see how things stack up.
Allison's reportedly going to Mercedes, which must make Ferrari wail and gnash their teeth. Losing him was not smart.
Mr. Jessop, was a similar system in place for the Croydon tram that crashed?
From what I've read they do, but a different system to that used on the railways. It is something that will certainly be looked into by the investigators.
Such systems are not infallible, and most can be worked around. It's a human factors issue: if you make them too intrusive then drivers work around them; but if you make them too lax then they're useless.
I think there was once a crash where a driver had jammed the switch with the lid of his lunch box. For these sorts of reasons, AIUI the current systems on the railways are something that has to be pressed every so often (e.g. when you pass a signal); if it is constantly pressed, or if you miss it, then the train reacts.
Mr. NorthWales, must admit the black comedy of people banging on about 'doing something' (sometimes the same people who think 'laws must be legal' and approved by the UN, giving China and Russia veto powers) is faintly ridiculous. The Sun's political editor (I think) was saying much the same on the Sky paper review last night, claiming we could have more sanctions or something and not resort to military action.
I fear he's living in fantasyland. It's military action or nothing, in terms of effectiveness. Russia's already under severe sanctions.
Not squeamish but I was surprised (unsure which channel) when a report featuring starving babies wasn't preceded by the usually overused 'scenes some viewers may find distressing' warning the other day.
We need to remember that it is best to ignore Russia's words and take note of Russia's actions. Their policy in dealing with urban-based rebels was demonstrated against the Chechens - destroy the city completely and wipe out the population. You can rebuild a city and repopulate with friendly bodies if necessary.
Comments
My father has met the Duke of Edinburgh.
I near climaxed when the Tories won a majority,
I had the opportunity to personally vote for Nick Clegg last year, I declined to do so, and voted for the Tory instead.
The Lib Dems wouldn't like my views on the deficit, and cutting it therein for starters.
Maybe they will know the answer to this question
https://twitter.com/maomentum_/status/807544261809938432
So much pain in two words. "the then"
'The then PM and a future PM'
Interesting. I believe that means no passport checks or customs checks for individuals (unless there is some special reason to stop and check them), but customs controls for commercial goods. That means no customs union.
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/self-driving-car-levels-sae-nhtsa/
Most people refer to level 5: where you could theoretically get in drunk and it'll drive you where you tell it to go with no driver interaction. I think you're referring to a level 2 or 3 car. That's what I think is a long, long way off. Edge and corner cases may literally be killers.
This means that it has to be the whole shebang - complete autonomous control - or nothing. That's why Google's latest effort has no steering wheel.
The problem has been that in recent times certain groups have sought to enforce good manners on others through violence, whether explicit or implicit, coupled with a lot of wailing about the hurt they've suffered. And at that point I decided that until such people learnt to understand that good manners don't come at the point of a gun, they didn't deserve my courtesy.
Good manners are, in the end, a form of kindness. But I do not offer kindness to the violent or the threatening or the bully.
Self esteem is for ourselves alone, though.
Any votes for a Russian Brexit? Perhaps Aaron Banks' new party could be called Edinaya Britannia.
"May appears to be oddly nervous in my eyes, considering her experience of front line politics, and she has a painful self awareness that must be disconcerting for her party. Of course, none of this has any substance unless it is translated into the opinion polls, and a change of narrative from the media, and for now, May is doing brilliantly in that sense, and Corbyn woefully.
But - even a superficially electable Labour leader would be making mincemeat of the Tories on a whole variety of subjects, and fortunately for the Tories, Corbyn, or his pitiful front bench, do not have the capacity to do that.
I believe May and the Tories have an historic opportunity to consign Labour - literally - to the dustbin of British politics, but she has to believe in herself and banish the self doubt. She will never have a greater opportunity to do that while Corbyn remains Labour leader.
The thing to understand about Corbyn is that he interested in issues but he has no policies. PMQs favours the opposition on the issues, so he can ask tough questions about social care, education and so on without having to explain what priorities and compromises he would make in developing his own policy for those issues.
I agree, and you could apply that rule to any Loto. I just wish May would believe in herself. If she did, she would tear Corbyn to pieces, like Cameron did.
I disagree on that part, actually. Ed Milliband had some quite interesting policy ideas. Some half formed and most that he was unable to articulate in a way the public could sign up to."
I'm not sure Miliband formulated any solid policies just 18 months after the 2010 election. Anyway, on the broader issue, I do agree with you that a Loto should have some advantage on a narrow issue question, but just reciting a pre-scripted monologue should be easy enough for a decent common's performer to swat away. May's demeanour betrays a lack of confidence, not ability. Perhaps the 'unelected PM' jibe rankles with her. In contrast, Corbyn has no ability, and it is all the stranger why May does not take him to pieces - comfortably - every week at PMQs.
May could do a lot worse than to watch some previous clips of Cameron at PMQs. She has it within herself to be a great and defining PM, I really do believe that, but that has to come from within. The last thing the Tories want is a comparison with Gordon Brown.
I agree, and you could apply that rule to any Loto. I just wish May would believe in herself. If she did, she would tear Corbyn to pieces, like Cameron did.
I disagree on that part, actually. Ed Milliband had some quite interesting policy ideas. Some half formed and most that he was unable to articulate in a way the public could sign up to."
I'm not sure Miliband formulated any solid policies just 18 months after the 2010 election. Anyway, on the broader issue, I do agree with you that a Loto should have some advantage on a narrow issue question, but just reciting a pre-scripted monologue should be easy enough for a decent common's performer to swat away. May's demeanour betrays a lack of confidence, not ability. Perhaps the 'unelected PM' jibe rankles with her. In contrast, Corbyn has no ability, and it is all the stranger why May does not take him to pieces - comfortably - every week at PMQs.
May could do a lot worse than to watch some previous clips of Cameron at PMQs. She has it within herself to be a great and defining PM, I really do believe that, but that has to come from within. The last thing the Tories want is a comparison with Gordon Brown.
_______________________________________________________
There's a literal dustbin of British politics?
If so, where are the boundaries?
I disagree on that part, actually. Ed Milliband had some quite interesting policy ideas. Some half formed and most that he was unable to articulate in a way the public could sign up to."
I'm not sure Miliband formulated any solid policies just 18 months after the 2010 election. Anyway, on the broader issue, I do agree with you that a Loto should have some advantage on a narrow issue question, but just reciting a pre-scripted monologue should be easy enough for a decent common's performer to swat away. May's demeanour betrays a lack of confidence, not ability. Perhaps the 'unelected PM' jibe rankles with her. In contrast, Corbyn has no ability, and it is all the stranger why May does not take him to pieces - comfortably - every week at PMQs.
May could do a lot worse than to watch some previous clips of Cameron at PMQs. She has it within herself to be a great and defining PM, I really do believe that, but that has to come from within. The last thing the Tories want is a comparison with Gordon Brown.
_______________________________________________________
There's a literal dustbin of British politics?
It's propped up next to the Ed-stone....
I hope she'll be a great PM, up there with Thatcher and Eden (*). But so far I've seen little publicly to back up that hope.
The jury is very much out.
(*) Only joking
Uncommon though these situations no doubt are, automating that last half a percent of edge cases is going to be extremely difficult. At the very least it will require a complete rethink of diversion signs and traffic control.
(I agree that relying on a human driver to intervene in an emergency is a non-starter, for the reasons you give).
MPs on her own side having an issue ?
Maybe - but I'd take a 20 pt poll lead & my leader being perceived to be poor at PMQs any day of the week, rather than the inverse.
The rest of the country couldn't give a hoot.
Interpreting others ideas as equivalent to something genuinely heinous is counter productivem since it leads to people normalising the heinous, which is the opposite of the intention I'm sure. Part and parcel of being offended on peoples' behalfs anbd making the right ot not be offended the most sacred right of all, it leads to more problems than it solves. But many would and hav argued that Laws and Clegg are Blue in all but name, so things come full circle.
From what I hear out and about, most people are prepared to cut Theresa May plenty of slack. With Brexit, she was thrown a hopsital pass (albeit, she was standing on the line shouting "Me! Get the ball TO ME!!!"). If Brexit goes horribly wrong, it will partially reflect on her, but also her team of negotiators - and, as far as the tabloid press will be concerned, it will mostly be down to the EUrocrats being beastly and showing why it was a bloody good idea to leave.
Plus, who on the Opposition benches is going to be making the case that she should take the blame? Who has a clear Plan B?
Getting them to work on a sunny day in California is merely a baby step.
I see the religion thread continued for the two hours I was absent. All I can say is that, regardless of whether one is atheist, Christian, Muslim or holds any other religious position, surely we can all agree that all of us, each and every one, should buy my book Kingdom Asunder?
*May not be as sunny as advertised
For me, the boundary is clear. Incitement to actual physical harm, or harassment that can be reasonably expected to lead to actual self-harm in the target. The latter is a bit difficult to define for law enforcement terms, but we should not let people bully the fragile to the point of suicide or other self-harm.
That said, I for one would like to see people encouraged to be more mentally robust - stick and stones etc ...
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/809060016804298753
Mind you adaptive cruise control (keeping you at the same speed as the car in front) and lane assist (keeping you in the middleish of the lane) are nice features I cannot live without.
Robustness is good. However if someone is consistently told something negative, it is very difficult to be robust.
There is also defamation and slander to consider.
What I think we agree on is that the State shouldn't be moderating people's behaviour except in limited ways that avoid specific harm being done
He is the most impressive of the Brexit three but the complexities of leaving the EU are indeed immense, though that is not a reason to default on the will of the people
So many say something has to be done but just how is it that possible with Russia and Syria defying world opinion and that useless of all organation the UN paralysed.
We went to our grandchildren's nativity concert at their school yesterday and it was so beautiful with the children so engaged and it made you so protective towards all of them and yet disturbed by so much suffering by so many innocents.
We believe Sky has a responsibility to report these horrors but do they ever think just how many young innocent children in our Country see these images and recoil in horror and get very frightened. They do need to be more responsible.
We have found ourselves tuning to BBC much more often where they do report the suffering in a more measured way
I fear he's living in fantasyland. It's military action or nothing, in terms of effectiveness. Russia's already under severe sanctions.
Not squeamish but I was surprised (unsure which channel) when a report featuring starving babies wasn't preceded by the usually overused 'scenes some viewers may find distressing' warning the other day.
Amazing that Leave won, absolutely incredible
We beLEAVEd.
It's complicated, of course, but there are two things I hold to. There is no point intervening unless you make the situation better, which is why I also opposed the Iraq invasion. I realise that means abandoning people there to their fate. It doesn't make me feel good at all.
The other thing is that those that carry out the atrocity are responsible for it. The Syrian government is responsible for its soldiers killing civilians in cold blood. Vladimir Putin is responsible for the destruction and mass killings caused by his airforce bombings. We are not responsible. The US isn't responsible. We have done other things, but not those.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38315784
I felt nervous putting (for PB) small sums on Maldonado and Alonso to lead lap 1 in the 2012 Spanish Grand Prix, despite them starting 1 and 2 and having odds of about 6 each [Hamilton was fastest in qualifying but was disqualified for a fuel irregularity].
Those responsible should ideally be held to account but that is all too frequently beyond our powers too. What we can and should do is express our disgust.
Good solid consistent, rather than the mostly rubbish then one splendid of this year.
Edited extra bit: consistency*
A while back I had a large pack of children's flash cards delivered. I just found a counting set with a card saying: 'Twenteey'.
Well, it's certainly educational.
That said, I admit that outside sources can inhibit the development of self esteem. I'd put the emphasis or where culture and peer pressure affect manners more locally than society though - say at the community level.
Lest I have not been clear, I am all for good manners. But, for me, letting insults upset me seems a very pointless activity. The only person adversely affected by me being insulted is me. Why would I do that to myself?
And I dislike short odds bets, although without good old No Safety Car this year would've been even redder.
Some chap was saying the 2017 regulations are the biggest changes for decades. Hopefully that'll present some profitable outcomes early on. If they look competitive (top 3, say) I'll be looking to back McLaren in Australia, where they historically do well (circuit nature really suits the car, as a rule) then back someone else at the next race, but we'll see how things stack up.
Allison's reportedly going to Mercedes, which must make Ferrari wail and gnash their teeth. Losing him was not smart.
Mr. Jessop, a short BBC video review of F1 (and Rosberg's retirement) used 'sited' instead of 'cited' (referring to reason for retirement).
.....
*sighs*
When I make mistakes like that in writing, the note to change usually includes an instruction to correct it, then cut off my own hands.
Such systems are not infallible, and most can be worked around. It's a human factors issue: if you make them too intrusive then drivers work around them; but if you make them too lax then they're useless.
I think there was once a crash where a driver had jammed the switch with the lid of his lunch box. For these sorts of reasons, AIUI the current systems on the railways are something that has to be pressed every so often (e.g. when you pass a signal); if it is constantly pressed, or if you miss it, then the train reacts.