politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s cartoon on Trump and the Nother Korean leader Kim Jo

SystemSystem Posts: 12,257
edited January 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s cartoon on Trump and the Nother Korean leader Kim Jong-un

Thank you again to Nicholas Leonard and Helen Cochrane.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited January 2018
    1st subject to the nuclear option that vanilla uses to vapourise threads and comments.

    Kim likes chocolate buttons from the look of him.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/950834972457406469
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Oprah's Presidential bid thread didn't last long. Back on Trump already?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited January 2018
    Foxy said:

    The Daily Mail has the best Tabloid level coverage of medical issues. Not bad at all and far better than the Express, with its weekly trumpeting of miracle breakthroughs.

    My mother buys it, though usually just the Sunday.

    That's quite interesting. I always presumed their medical coverage was like the rest of their stuff, some times true, often sloppy with the facts, and always heavily spun.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited January 2018
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/950834972457406469

    I thought that was the traditional method of reshuffle, only eschewed by Cameron keeping Ministers in place for extended periods.

    Agree it feels like a return to a less satisfactory system, but we have used it for a few generations.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited January 2018
    Cameron to his credit had the right idea on reshuffles....don't do them unless you really have to. Tony Blair's near constant reshuffles were just bonkers. What successful companies shifts around its senior management team every year.

    Right Bob, I know you are doing a great job as head of R&D, but we are shifting you off to HR,

    But boss, I have a PhD in Computer Science and never worked in HR
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,344
    Another reshuffle.

    https://twitter.com/jwpetersNYT/status/950837501111005185
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited January 2018
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Another reshuffle.

    twitter.com/jwpetersNYT/status/950837501111005185

    Crickey....I somehow doubt he will disappear quietly into the night.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Another reshuffle.

    https://twitter.com/jwpetersNYT/status/950837501111005185

    I rather think he was pushed off the step - presumably with an undisclosed pay off.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Do Virgin Trains block the Mail online and Breitbart news on their on board wifi as well?!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited January 2018
    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,259
    edited January 2018
    Virgin have as much right to not sell the Mail as a baker has to not make a cake with a message on that they do not approve of.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited January 2018
    Oh no...in added time...GOAL - Manchester City 2-1 Bristol City
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    tlg86 said:

    Virgin have as much right to not sell the Mail as a baker has not make a cake with a message on that they do not approve of.

    Be interesting to know how many of those that cheer on stop funding hate square that circle.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    A more nuanced analysis than “May is useless” - Matthew Goodwin

    What is Theresa May doing with this reshuffle? The answer may lie with a Conservative electorate that has undergone profound change. Today, the Conservative Party’s following is far more pro-Brexit, more working-class than that which handed David Cameron a surprise majority back in 2015. Making sense of this change is crucial to making sense of where the party should head next.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/09/whether-tories-meet-triumph-disaster-depends-immigration-reform/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,720
    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    brendan16 said:

    I rather think he was pushed off the step - presumably with an undisclosed pay off.

    @BenjySarlin: Man who warned of global conspiracy between billionaires and White House fired by billionaire and White House
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited January 2018
    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    I rather think he was pushed off the step - presumably with an undisclosed pay off.

    @BenjySarlin: Man who warned of global conspiracy between billionaires and White House fired by billionaire and White House
    Alex Jones is going to explode.....It is clearly all those deep state operatives at work.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,301
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Cameron to his credit had the right idea on reshuffles....don't do them unless you really have to. Tony Blair's near constant reshuffles were just bonkers. What successful companies shifts around its senior management team every year.

    Right Bob, I know you are doing a great job as head of R&D, but we are shifting you off to HR,

    But boss, I have a PhD in Computer Science and never worked in HR

    Reminded me of a scene in a film.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvG3R-xOMzE
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/mocent0/status/950845404366757889
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited January 2018
    tlg86 said:

    Virgin have as much right to not sell the Mail as a baker has to not make a cake with a message on that they do not approve of.

    I agree - they don't stock the Guardian either. But let's not pretend principles trump commercial decisions - all that preaching is just a bit rich.

    And you can of course read the Mail online and Guardian online for free on their onboard wifi. Why spend £2 on the FT in the onboard shop when you can read the Mail onboard for free?! All those endless stories about Z list celebs sure shorten that long journey from London to Scotland!!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Cameron to his credit had the right idea on reshuffles....don't do them unless you really have to. Tony Blair's near constant reshuffles were just bonkers.

    Agree entirely - though Cameron was partly constrained by the coalition dynamics. Used to reckon you had to leave someone in position for 3 years as a minimum - Year 1 to learn, Year 2 to make mistakes, Year 3 to learn from the mistakes. Moving someone shortly after they’ve mastered their brief is bonkers....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/950846342573776896
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    CarlottaVance said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
    The decision to delist the product or the decision to publicise the fact?

    Apparently they chose to delist it months ago. Its only been publicised today.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    brendan16 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Virgin have as much right to not sell the Mail as a baker has to not make a cake with a message on that they do not approve of.

    I agree - they don't stock the Guardian either. But let's not pretend principles trump commercial decisions - it's just a bit rich.
    If they only sold 70 Daily Mails a day, they probably not even shift a single copy of the Guardian......
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited January 2018
    Philip_Thompson said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
    The decision to delist the product or the decision to publicise the fact?

    Apparently they chose to delist it months ago. Its only been publicised today.
    The PR statement was really hectoring and PC buzzword bingo.

    Personally, I think they would have been better just to say, people don't buy newspapers like they used to due to the internet / iPads, ans the Mail doesn't sell very well on our service, therefore we have delisted it. End of.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,720
    CarlottaVance said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
    Or Richard Branson's tax avoidance.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,817
    edited January 2018
    CarlottaVance said:

    A more nuanced analysis than “May is useless” - Matthew Goodwin

    What is Theresa May doing with this reshuffle? The answer may lie with a Conservative electorate that has undergone profound change. Today, the Conservative Party’s following is far more pro-Brexit, more working-class than that which handed David Cameron a surprise majority back in 2015. Making sense of this change is crucial to making sense of where the party should head next.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/09/whether-tories-meet-triumph-disaster-depends-immigration-reform/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    His so-called 'middle way' just amounts to doubling down on a Bluekip strategy. Apparently the way to breakthrough with younger voters is to allow a new generation of Conservatives to "speak directly to those working-class voters, including many socially conservative Labour supporters, who agree with the Tories on Brexit and immigration but remain sceptical about their stance on the economy."

    It's fighting the war of 2016 on the battlefield of 2022.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    Sean_F said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
    Or Richard Branson's tax avoidance.
    Or his hands on approach with the ladies.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    https://twitter.com/matthew_elliott/status/950813555548401664
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Sean_F said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
    Or Richard Branson's tax avoidance.
    When your train company charges more for a peak standard class train journey from London to Manchester than some airlines charge to fly from London to New York their talk of morals and ethics is just a bit much.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,720
    brendan16 said:

    Sean_F said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
    Or Richard Branson's tax avoidance.
    When your train company charges more for a peak standard class train journey from London to Manchester than some airlines charge to fly from London to New York their talk of morals and ethics is just a bit much.
    It's a bit like getting a lecture in ethics from the devil.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    williamglenn said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    A more nuanced analysis than “May is useless” - Matthew Goodwin

    What is Theresa May doing with this reshuffle? The answer may lie with a Conservative electorate that has undergone profound change. Today, the Conservative Party’s following is far more pro-Brexit, more working-class than that which handed David Cameron a surprise majority back in 2015. Making sense of this change is crucial to making sense of where the party should head next.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/09/whether-tories-meet-triumph-disaster-depends-immigration-reform/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    His so-called 'middle way' just amounts to doubling down on a Bluekip strategy. Apparently the way to breakthrough with younger voters is to allow a new generation of Conservatives to "speak directly to those working-class voters, including many socially conservative Labour supporters, who agree with the Tories on Brexit and immigration but remain sceptical about their stance on the economy."

    It's fighting the war of 2016 on the battlefield of 2022.
    Unspoofable
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951
    brendan16 said:

    Sean_F said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
    Or Richard Branson's tax avoidance.
    When your train company charges more for a peak standard class train journey from London to Manchester than some airlines charge to fly from London to New York their talk of morals and ethics is just a bit much.
    Spot on.

    By making a general statement about "values" they have raised very important questions about what their values actually are. Many people - myself included - didn't think they had any beyond using their monopoly power to milk a captive market for every last penny they're able to before the regulator steps in.

    Virgin Trains taking the moral high ground? Pull the other one.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,254
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/950846342573776896

    Anyone would think Brussels was getting nervous about not getting their £40 billion.

    That it has already spent.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    kyf_100 said:

    brendan16 said:

    Sean_F said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
    Or Richard Branson's tax avoidance.
    When your train company charges more for a peak standard class train journey from London to Manchester than some airlines charge to fly from London to New York their talk of morals and ethics is just a bit much.
    Spot on.

    By making a general statement about "values" they have raised very important questions about what their values actually are. Many people - myself included - didn't think they had any beyond using their monopoly power to milk a captive market for every last penny they're able to before the regulator steps in.

    Virgin Trains taking the moral high ground? Pull the other one.
    It is interesting their values are fine with the Mirror. A newspaper that made the NOTW look like part-time amateurs when it came to phone hacking.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Sean_F said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
    Or Richard Branson's tax avoidance.
    Or his hands on approach with the ladies.
    Branson is a prick so it's no wonder his hands are in tune.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited January 2018
    MarqueeMark said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/950846342573776896

    Anyone would think Brussels was getting nervous about not getting their £40 billion.

    That it has already spent.
    A headline of 'Brussels serves notice of bumper no-deal Brexit for UK industry' would be a real shock.
    This headline is one of the more predictable messages for Brussels to disseminate.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/matthew_elliott/status/950813555548401664

    Very few jobs will actually be lost. Although some, which would have been gained, will not now be gained.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
    The decision to delist the product or the decision to publicise the fact?

    Apparently they chose to delist it months ago. Its only been publicised today.
    The PR statement was really hectoring and PC buzzword bingo.

    Personally, I think they would have been better just to say, people don't buy newspapers like they used to due to the internet / iPads, ans the Mail doesn't sell very well on our service, therefore we have delisted it. End of.
    Of course it was hectoring and PC buzzword bingo, that is what got them the free publicity and a top BBC news story.

    Had they done what you said, how much publicity would that have garnered them?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    edited January 2018
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/matthew_elliott/status/950813555548401664

    Very few jobs will actually be lost. Although some, which would have been gained, will not now be gained.
    I wonder what the result might have been had Remain not tried to swing the referendum with their variously duff figures...

    60/40 Leave?
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    MarqueeMark said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/950846342573776896

    Anyone would think Brussels was getting nervous about not getting their £40 billion.

    That it has already spent.
    How does the EU enforce any no deal threat?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    ReggieCide said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/950846342573776896

    Anyone would think Brussels was getting nervous about not getting their £40 billion.

    That it has already spent.
    How does the EU enforce any no deal threat?
    By default.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Philip_Thompson said:

    ReggieCide said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/950846342573776896

    Anyone would think Brussels was getting nervous about not getting their £40 billion.

    That it has already spent.
    How does the EU enforce any no deal threat?
    By default.
    I may be being dense but I don't understand your point.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    ReggieCide said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    ReggieCide said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/950846342573776896

    Anyone would think Brussels was getting nervous about not getting their £40 billion.

    That it has already spent.
    How does the EU enforce any no deal threat?
    By default.
    I may be being dense but I don't understand your point.
    I think it means by taking the ball home and not playing with us.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,556
    ReggieCide said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    ReggieCide said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/950846342573776896

    Anyone would think Brussels was getting nervous about not getting their £40 billion.

    That it has already spent.
    How does the EU enforce any no deal threat?
    By default.
    I may be being dense but I don't understand your point.
    If a deal is not agreed, then No Deal Brexit happens by default. It takes two to tango.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,229
    kyf_100 said:

    brendan16 said:

    Sean_F said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Still not banned....like the Mail on Wikipedia....unlike the Mail on Virgin Trains...

    Refusing to stock a product you don't like/sell is not the same as banning something.

    My local Morrisons doesn't stock The Economist in its magazine section. Does that mean they're banning it?
    FFS...it was a joke, based upon the last thread, where somebody incorrectly claimed the Mail was banned by Wikipedia plus obviously all the talk about todays story, and the fact I have banged on in the past about Radiohead etc which has lead to some getting the ban hammer.
    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc
    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
    Or Richard Branson's tax avoidance.
    When your train company charges more for a peak standard class train journey from London to Manchester than some airlines charge to fly from London to New York their talk of morals and ethics is just a bit much.
    Spot on.

    By making a general statement about "values" they have raised very important questions about what their values actually are. Many people - myself included - didn't think they had any beyond using their monopoly power to milk a captive market for every last penny they're able to before the regulator steps in.

    Virgin Trains taking the moral high ground? Pull the other one.
    When I step on a train from London to Manchester the first thing on my mind is whether or not I'm conducting my trip appropriately in accordance with Richard Branson's values.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Foxy said:

    ReggieCide said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    ReggieCide said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/950846342573776896

    Anyone would think Brussels was getting nervous about not getting their £40 billion.

    That it has already spent.
    How does the EU enforce any no deal threat?
    By default.
    I may be being dense but I don't understand your point.
    If a deal is not agreed, then No Deal Brexit happens by default. It takes two to tango.
    I understand that, but what is the "bleak" that is being threatened. No deal is no deal: how can it be bleak or rosy without there being a deal?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/alliehbnews/status/950853527492022272

    But the carmakers...
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/alliehbnews/status/950853527492022272

    But the carmakers...

    Angela who?

    She can't even form a government....
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,406
    MarqueeMark said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/950846342573776896

    Anyone would think Brussels was getting nervous about not getting their £40 billion.

    That it has already spent.
    I think most if not all of that money is going to Brussels even if there is ‘no deal’.
    That was the point of the EU sequencing.

    In any case - I remain confident there will be a deal.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,428
    Branston banning the Daily Rant on his trains is crazy - Guess he's another member of the elite to be literally driven insane by Brexit?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951
    Casino_Royale said:

    kyf_100 said:

    brendan16 said:

    Sean_F said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sean_F said:

    Philip_Thompson said:



    My apologies, I thought you were being serious especially given some of the comments in the last thread (not by yourself mind) equating Virgin's decision to stop selling 70 copies of the paper a day nationally as "shutting down the free press" etc

    Virgin have the right to preach at their customers (and I would not wish to bar them from doing so) and we have the right to criticise them.
    That's reasonable. And we have a right to defend them.

    Frankly I think it's a vacuous PR stunt getting free publicity for delisting a product they were perfectly content to sell for as long as it actually sold and that those attacking them for making this decision are playing into their hands by giving them the oxygen of more free publicity.
    I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the Mail’s coverage of Virgin’s poor service.....
    Or Richard Branson's tax avoidance.
    When your train company charges more for a peak standard class train journey from London to Manchester than some airlines charge to fly from London to New York their talk of morals and ethics is just a bit much.
    Spot on.

    By making a general statement about "values" they have raised very important questions about what their values actually are. Many people - myself included - didn't think they had any beyond using their monopoly power to milk a captive market for every last penny they're able to before the regulator steps in.

    Virgin Trains taking the moral high ground? Pull the other one.
    When I step on a train from London to Manchester the first thing on my mind is whether or not I'm conducting my trip appropriately in accordance with Richard Branson's values.
    When I step on a train from London to Manchester the first thing on my mind is that I've just spent £170 for the privilege... Factor in the return journey + cost of door to door and it is considerably cheaper to drive or even rent a car.

    While I was away on business last year it cost me about a grand to rent a car for an entire month...
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,762
    A rather gloomy prognosis of the Conservative Party from the man who not long ago was every Tory Leaver's favourite Leftie:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/09/theresa-may-tory-party-dying-reshuffle-conservatives
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,254
    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    tlg86 said:

    Virgin have as much right to not sell the Mail as a baker has not make a cake with a message on that they do not approve of.

    Be interesting to know how many of those that cheer on stop funding hate square that circle.
    It's pretty easy. Sexual orientation is a characteristic protected against discrimination in many places, as is gender and race etc. Bakers can refuse to make cakes saying "Vote Trump" or "Vote Corbyn" or four-letter words etc, whether the person ordering is gay, straight, male, female, black, white or whatever. It's when the refusal is clearly related to the protected characteristic of the customer that it becomes illegal.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,428
    MarqueeMark said:

    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.

    Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!!
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    GIN1138 said:

    Branston banning the Daily Rant on his trains is crazy - Guess he's another member of the elite to be literally driven insane by Brexit?

    Given that in TPT it was pointed out that Branson does not have a controlling stake in the Virgin Trains franchises, why do you think it was his doing?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    Shares in photo firm Eastman Kodak soared nearly 120% after it revealed plans to mint its own crypto-currency, the KodakCoin.

    The US firm said it was teaming up with London-based Wenn Media Group to carry out the initial coin offering (ICO).

    It is part of a blockchain-based initiative to help photographers control their image rights.

    Kodak also detailed plans to install rows of Bitcoin mining rigs at its headquarters in Rochester, New York.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42630136

    Head desk....thud, thud, thud....
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    MarqueeMark said:

    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.

    In a confrontation of bullies, it seems to me that the physically bigger one (metaphorically) will invariably come out on top.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Shares in photo firm Eastman Kodak soared nearly 120% after it revealed plans to mint its own crypto-currency, the KodakCoin.

    The US firm said it was teaming up with London-based Wenn Media Group to carry out the initial coin offering (ICO).

    It is part of a blockchain-based initiative to help photographers control their image rights.

    Kodak also detailed plans to install rows of Bitcoin mining rigs at its headquarters in Rochester, New York.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42630136

    Head desk....thud, thud, thud....

    1. Implement a blockchain
    2. ?
    3. Profit!
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,906
    GIN1138 said:

    Branston banning the Daily Rant on his trains is crazy - Guess he's another member of the elite to be literally driven insane by Brexit?

    Branson repeatedly predicting an immediate recession after the Referendum and claiming some mysterious deal has been lost:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GQZyP_Odio

    Notice that like many Remainers at the time Branson was obsessed about share prices but then went very quiet about them when they went up to record highs.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,317
    rkrkrk said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/950846342573776896

    Anyone would think Brussels was getting nervous about not getting their £40 billion.

    That it has already spent.
    I think most if not all of that money is going to Brussels even if there is ‘no deal’.
    That was the point of the EU sequencing.

    In any case - I remain confident there will be a deal.
    No, even the EU has admitted that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A no deal means much less money, only that which we owe until 2019.

    Tbh, if they can't get other countries to make up the difference when we stop paying in then the EU is much less popular than people realise. On here when the referendum was announced the thinking was a remain victory by 20-30 points, much how polling looks in many EU countries that are now refusing to pay up.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Shares in photo firm Eastman Kodak soared nearly 120% after it revealed plans to mint its own crypto-currency, the KodakCoin.

    The US firm said it was teaming up with London-based Wenn Media Group to carry out the initial coin offering (ICO).

    It is part of a blockchain-based initiative to help photographers control their image rights.

    Kodak also detailed plans to install rows of Bitcoin mining rigs at its headquarters in Rochester, New York.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42630136

    Head desk....thud, thud, thud....

    I thought it was January.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    rpjs said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Shares in photo firm Eastman Kodak soared nearly 120% after it revealed plans to mint its own crypto-currency, the KodakCoin.

    The US firm said it was teaming up with London-based Wenn Media Group to carry out the initial coin offering (ICO).

    It is part of a blockchain-based initiative to help photographers control their image rights.

    Kodak also detailed plans to install rows of Bitcoin mining rigs at its headquarters in Rochester, New York.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42630136

    Head desk....thud, thud, thud....

    1. Implement a blockchain
    2. ?
    3. Profit!
    Iced tea company rebrands as “Long Blockchain” and stock price triples

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/iced-tea-company-stock-triples-after-adding-blockchain-to-name/
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    rpjs said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Shares in photo firm Eastman Kodak soared nearly 120% after it revealed plans to mint its own crypto-currency, the KodakCoin.

    The US firm said it was teaming up with London-based Wenn Media Group to carry out the initial coin offering (ICO).

    It is part of a blockchain-based initiative to help photographers control their image rights.

    Kodak also detailed plans to install rows of Bitcoin mining rigs at its headquarters in Rochester, New York.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42630136

    Head desk....thud, thud, thud....

    1. Implement a blockchain
    2. ?
    3. Profit!
    Isn't "2", "idiots"
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,720
    rpjs said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    tlg86 said:

    Virgin have as much right to not sell the Mail as a baker has not make a cake with a message on that they do not approve of.

    Be interesting to know how many of those that cheer on stop funding hate square that circle.
    It's pretty easy. Sexual orientation is a characteristic protected against discrimination in many places, as is gender and race etc. Bakers can refuse to make cakes saying "Vote Trump" or "Vote Corbyn" or four-letter words etc, whether the person ordering is gay, straight, male, female, black, white or whatever. It's when the refusal is clearly related to the protected characteristic of the customer that it becomes illegal.
    That does privilege some political opinions above others.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    rpjs said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    tlg86 said:

    Virgin have as much right to not sell the Mail as a baker has not make a cake with a message on that they do not approve of.

    Be interesting to know how many of those that cheer on stop funding hate square that circle.
    It's pretty easy. Sexual orientation is a characteristic protected against discrimination in many places, as is gender and race etc. Bakers can refuse to make cakes saying "Vote Trump" or "Vote Corbyn" or four-letter words etc, whether the person ordering is gay, straight, male, female, black, white or whatever. It's when the refusal is clearly related to the protected characteristic of the customer that it becomes illegal.
    Or you could just exercise your free market choice and take your business elsewhere rather than dragging the police in and the courts.

    Refusing to bake a cake for someone who is gay just because they are gay is not on - but saying people should be prosecuted because they don't wish to bake a cake for a gay wedding referencing that event which may go against their religious beliefs is I think arguably different.

    Although oddly you tend to find that it is Christian bakers with conservative views who are made examples of - bakers of certain other faiths never seem to be subjected to public condemnation. Or is it just Christian bakers that have an issue with gay marriage?

  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    The Telegraph today are reporting the latest plan to sabotage Brexit from our so-called civil servants - the 'three bucket' approach where we agree to be punished if we dare depart from EU regulations.

    In this light, DDs letter to May yesterday makes a bit more sense. May and Ollie Robbins obviously believe that they now have a great relationship with the EU and that they are moving together in the spirit of co-operation, whilst DD is warning her that the EUs only aim is to undermine UK interests and that they are actively doing so. DDs CETA-plus-plus-plus talk is directly in conflict with this three bucket plan, the only aim of which is to tie the UK into EU regulations as fully as possible whilst allowing May to claim that we have regained control of our laws (although it seems only in respect of areas where the EU don't care).

    Now I am reduced to hoping that Barnier prevails and only offers us a basic free trade deal after all. Any outcome is better than the UK agreeing to EU regulations after Brexit.

    After this is all over, I sincerely hope that Ollie Robbins is sent to the Tower. He is a traitor in the great tradition of the British civil service.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,254
    archer101au said:

    The Telegraph today are reporting the latest plan to sabotage Brexit from our so-called civil servants - the 'three bucket' approach where we agree to be punished if we dare depart from EU regulations.

    In this light, DDs letter to May yesterday makes a bit more sense. May and Ollie Robbins obviously believe that they now have a great relationship with the EU and that they are moving together in the spirit of co-operation, whilst DD is warning her that the EUs only aim is to undermine UK interests and that they are actively doing so. DDs CETA-plus-plus-plus talk is directly in conflict with this three bucket plan, the only aim of which is to tie the UK into EU regulations as fully as possible whilst allowing May to claim that we have regained control of our laws (although it seems only in respect of areas where the EU don't care).

    Now I am reduced to hoping that Barnier prevails and only offers us a basic free trade deal after all. Any outcome is better than the UK agreeing to EU regulations after Brexit.

    After this is all over, I sincerely hope that Ollie Robbins is sent to the Tower. He is a traitor in the great tradition of the British civil service.

    When's the Civil Service reshuffle?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,556
    rpjs said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    tlg86 said:

    Virgin have as much right to not sell the Mail as a baker has not make a cake with a message on that they do not approve of.

    Be interesting to know how many of those that cheer on stop funding hate square that circle.
    It's pretty easy. Sexual orientation is a characteristic protected against discrimination in many places, as is gender and race etc. Bakers can refuse to make cakes saying "Vote Trump" or "Vote Corbyn" or four-letter words etc, whether the person ordering is gay, straight, male, female, black, white or whatever. It's when the refusal is clearly related to the protected characteristic of the customer that it becomes illegal.
    Equalities Act 2010.

  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    brendan16 said:

    rpjs said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    tlg86 said:

    Virgin have as much right to not sell the Mail as a baker has not make a cake with a message on that they do not approve of.

    Be interesting to know how many of those that cheer on stop funding hate square that circle.
    It's pretty easy. Sexual orientation is a characteristic protected against discrimination in many places, as is gender and race etc. Bakers can refuse to make cakes saying "Vote Trump" or "Vote Corbyn" or four-letter words etc, whether the person ordering is gay, straight, male, female, black, white or whatever. It's when the refusal is clearly related to the protected characteristic of the customer that it becomes illegal.
    Or you could just exercise your free market choice and take your business elsewhere rather than dragging the police in and the courts.

    Refusing to bake a cake for someone who is gay just because they are gay is not on - but saying people should be prosecuted because they don't wish to bake a cake for a gay wedding referencing that event which may go against their religious beliefs is I think arguably different.

    Although oddly you tend to find that it is Christian bakers with conservative views who are made examples of - bakers of certain other faiths never seem to be subjected to public condemnation. Or is it just Christian bakers that have an issue with gay marriage?

    What happens if a baker decides to refuse to make cakes for black people because their "religion" (and there are various neo-Nazi/neo-pagan cults out there that would fit the bill) says so?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Oh dear, this interview with the promoted MP on Newsnight is not going well.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    Danny565 said:

    Oh dear, this interview with the promoted MP on Newsnight is not going well.

    Indeed. Though luckily Paul Mason is also on.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/950857136598286336?ref_src=twcamp^share|twsrc^m5|twgr^email|twcon^7046|twterm^1

    https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/950854699531587586?ref_src=twcamp^share|twsrc^m5|twgr^email|twcon^7046|twterm^1
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,556
    Danny565 said:

    Oh dear, this interview with the promoted MP on Newsnight is not going well.

    Kelly Tolhurst, who triumphed over TPD Reckless as I recall.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/950863227172175872
  • DublinerDubliner Posts: 44
    Why do people continue to talk of with-holding the £40 billion?

    Are they relying on nothing is agreed until everything etc.

    There are two agreements, and the terms of the first are now agreed in full. So far as I'm aware both parties expect to have this sealed and delivered in March, and talks on the second potential deal will start then.

    The nothing etc etc will, of course, apply equally to the second deal.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status/950846708250005504
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    More cogent comment you could not hope to read:

    https://twitter.com/DPRK_News/status/950604680018649088

    https://twitter.com/DPRK_News/status/948998955223969792
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587
    MarqueeMark said:

    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.

    Let's hope so. The Americans are not too keen on the development, though - they don't want the South Koreans freelancing a deal.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,927
    Where is this Nother Korea that the thread header refers to ?
    I though there was just North and South.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    https://twitter.com/pswidlicki/status/950866844990177280?ref_src=twcamp^share|twsrc^m5|twgr^email|twcon^7046|twterm^1
  • MattWMattW Posts: 24,329
    edited January 2018
    Foxy said:

    rpjs said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    tlg86 said:

    Virgin have as much right to not sell the Mail as a baker has not make a cake with a message on that they do not approve of.

    Be interesting to know how many of those that cheer on stop funding hate square that circle.
    It's pretty easy. Sexual orientation is a characteristic protected against discrimination in many places, as is gender and race etc. Bakers can refuse to make cakes saying "Vote Trump" or "Vote Corbyn" or four-letter words etc, whether the person ordering is gay, straight, male, female, black, white or whatever. It's when the refusal is clearly related to the protected characteristic of the customer that it becomes illegal.
    Equalities Act 2010.

    That always struck me as a decision with tortured logic by the Supreme Court; the customer had not identified himself as gay in that case so there was no knowledge of the protected characteristic of the customer. The Supreme Court accepted that there was no knowledge, so they came out with stuff about 'discrimination against the protected characteristic of the community' - based on the BBC report below. I do recall bafflement in parts of the sensible NI media.

    The alternative would be set of circs where we are all required to be telepathic with 100% reliability.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

    I would be quite interested to hear the argument or demonstration that such is covered by the 2010 Act.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    MarqueeMark said:

    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.

    Trump mediated by China turning the economic screws, which probably is the more direct cause.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,254
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.

    Trump mediated by China turning the economic screws, which probably is the more direct cause.
    Because China can't read Trump either.

    Obama was just so predictable.......
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,254
    NickPalmer said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.

    Let's hope so. The Americans are not too keen on the development, though - they don't want the South Koreans freelancing a deal.
    The only real hope for a deal I see in the region is South Korea, North Korea and China resolving something "before that crazy guy Trump makes a mess of the whole damn peninsular...." Although it is going to require something rather special to get the North Korean nukes over the border and into Chinese safekeeping.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,906
    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.

    Trump mediated by China turning the economic screws, which probably is the more direct cause.
    Because China can't read Trump either.

    Obama was just so predictable.......
    Predictable and weak.

    Predictable is okay if you can be predicted to be strong.

    Obama wasn't.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited January 2018
    For reference, the NK regime is indeed genuinely concerned that the US will make good on its threats.

    It is undoubtedly true that China has got seriously hacked off at its buffer state. Yes they have tightened down economically but not to anywhere near a critical level. The chancer in Moscow holding not much more than a pair of twos has also been quietly helping Pyongyang circumvent some of the damage.

    Perhaps decisive is what has been missed by many, the Chinese by word and deed have let the Dear Leader know that they believe the US is serious. The stockpiling of materials and men on the border by China in recent weeks to prepare for a flood of North Korean refugees is a signal all in itself to Kim.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,556
    another_richard said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.

    Trump mediated by China turning the economic screws, which probably is the more direct cause.
    Because China can't read Trump either.

    Obama was just so predictable.......
    Predictable and weak.

    Predictable is okay if you can be predicted to be strong.

    Obama wasn't.
    Obama killed Bin Laden, in a raid on a supposed freindly country. Neither predictable or weak.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,729
    "PM likely to survive final Commons Brexit vote, says John Curtice"

    "Elections expert predicts deal will be agreed with EU and approved in Commons, with Theresa May remaining in post"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/09/pm-likely-to-survive-final-commons-brexit-vote-says-john-curtice
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,254
    another_richard said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.

    Trump mediated by China turning the economic screws, which probably is the more direct cause.
    Because China can't read Trump either.

    Obama was just so predictable.......
    Predictable and weak.

    Predictable is okay if you can be predicted to be strong.

    Obama wasn't.
    This might be tortured thinking, but is it possible that China sees Trump's domestic issues -
    with possible impeachment over Russia - and thinks to itself "Shit, this guy really might press the button on North Korea as a distraction....."?

    If the US hammers North Korea, then Chinese "protection" really will be demonstrated to be worthless. Not a message they want to see as they implement their aim to increase China's influence around the globe.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited January 2018
    Foxy said:

    another_richard said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.

    Trump mediated by China turning the economic screws, which probably is the more direct cause.
    Because China can't read Trump either.

    Obama was just so predictable.......
    Predictable and weak.

    Predictable is okay if you can be predicted to be strong.

    Obama wasn't.
    Obama killed Bin Laden, in a raid on a supposed freindly country. Neither predictable or weak.
    Obama did not kill anyone. At the 5th time of asking he agreed to go ahead the raid. The other four were requested for the exact same location and he refused to authorise it.

    This is the same Obama who knew the Russians were involved in serious disruption efforts via cyber means against the US state and indeed US democracy and did nothing because he thought doing nothing somehow would bring the Russians to stop.

    He was f**king useless.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,406
    edited January 2018
    MaxPB said:

    rkrkrk said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/950846342573776896

    Anyone would think Brussels was getting nervous about not getting their £40 billion.

    That it has already spent.
    I think most if not all of that money is going to Brussels even if there is ‘no deal’.
    That was the point of the EU sequencing.

    In any case - I remain confident there will be a deal.
    No, even the EU has admitted that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A no deal means much less money, only that which we owe until 2019.

    Tbh, if they can't get other countries to make up the difference when we stop paying in then the EU is much less popular than people realise. On here when the referendum was announced the thinking was a remain victory by 20-30 points, much how polling looks in many EU countries that are now refusing to pay up.
    My understanding is the methodology for approx 40bn is agreed and is legally binding.
    That money is just the divorce payment and happens even if no deal is done on trade. EDIT - that figure includes commitments underneath 2014-2020 budget I believe.

    The transition and /final state deal may have money involved or not - that’s still up for discussion.

    Presumably we could go back on a legally binding agreement. But it seems vanishingly unlikely to me.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,906
    edited January 2018
    Foxy said:

    another_richard said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Whisper it, but the Trump belligerence might just be getting results with North Korea..... They seem to have blinked first.

    Trump mediated by China turning the economic screws, which probably is the more direct cause.
    Because China can't read Trump either.

    Obama was just so predictable.......
    Predictable and weak.

    Predictable is okay if you can be predicted to be strong.

    Obama wasn't.
    Obama killed Bin Laden, in a raid on a supposed freindly country. Neither predictable or weak.
    And you think Obama had an effective choice on whether to authorise that mission ?

    Once Bin Laden was located it would have been politically catastrophic to have done nothing.

    Edit: I see Yokel has responded better.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    MikeL said:

    "PM likely to survive final Commons Brexit vote, says John Curtice"

    "Elections expert predicts deal will be agreed with EU and approved in Commons, with Theresa May remaining in post"

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/09/pm-likely-to-survive-final-commons-brexit-vote-says-john-curtice

    Brexit poses a fundamental challenge to the theology of the European Union: the UK public doesn’t accept that free trade and freedom of movement necessarily go together,” he said. “The point is, people come with social externalities that goods don’t necessary come with.” In other words, voters may like an east European delicatessen in the neighbourhood but not necessarily more east Europeans as neighbours.
This discussion has been closed.