How can we be sure that some dinosaurs did not develop higher intelligence, or even societies?
No evidence at all of tool use. Whilst the record is scant we would probably have found something.
60 m years is a long time for evidence of anything to survive. With us, the giveaway will probably be the plastic microbeads from our cosmetics.
We have evdence of tool use amongst primates from 3.4 million years ago. Once you get to that stage in the fossilisation process it doesn't really matter if it is 3.4 or 34 or 134 million. If they used tools then we would find evidence if it. Especially given we find nests, eggs and feathers.
Is that fossil evidence, though, rather than actual stone tools?
I think your stipulation as to what constitutes higher intelligence is too narrow, anyway. Tools are initially for killing animals for food and clothing, and building shelters. A vegetarian society of creatures well enough adapted to their surroundings to get by without clothes and houses could spend their time discoursing on philosophy or calculating the value of pi, without leaving much trace.
If hardliner Brexit Tories ensure the fall of the government and make Corbyn PM they'll be marked for eternity for their betrayal like Cain, Judas, and Mark Reckless.
These traitors need to be forced out of the Tory party.
If May makes the customs union votes a confidence matter, surely it will be the europhiles voting in the direction of a Corbyn PM? Also, by using the language of treachery you demean yourself and our party.
Correct, it’s the Anna Soubrys and Nicky Morgans that are threatening to vote against the whip, not the Jacob Rees-Moggs and the Peter Bones.
So what's the consensus on this customs union vote? Does it actually matter much?
This one is mainly symbolic, but is a pointer to what might happen in a more substantive vote later.
Will there be a substantive vote later on this issue alone? I don't see how TM can win such a vote since Labour will oppose and there ought to be enough Tory remainer rebels...
Mr. 43, Edward I's dickishness in his decision-making and elderly lack of vigour cost him in Scotland. That said, he could've won had he simply made smarter choices. Not rewarding the nobles (with land) who were risking life and limb cost him a lot.
His son being pretty inept was also helpful to the Scots.
This was the dilemma of the invading English king. Edward III had the same problem and Henry V had a variation on this with the ransom for James I. Do you reward your own nobles who are reliable but ineffective against the combined opposition of Scottish society or do you try to co-opt the native nobility, who are effective but unreliable? One grant of land is at the expense of the other. You can't do both. Whenever things need sorting out, Scotland has always been good at getting informal working groups to rally round, consisting of younger sons of the nobility and bishops and later lawyers and business people. I guess that's why Scotland has never effectively been occupied long term, unlike Ireland or Wales, with the exception of Cromwell.
The only people already living in Scotland in A.D. 400 were the Picts.
It was subsequently invaded and occupied by the Scotti from Ireland.
I wonder if the new royal achieves as much as the last thirdborn to be King. William IV ushered in ceremonial monarchy. He even subjugated himself to the Commons by agreeing to, if needed, stack the Lords at the PM's request. The purpose was to stop the unelected Lords from overturning a bill that would bring greater power to the British people.
A fine precedent for the British constitution.
Wasn't Prince Edward last thirdborn to be King (excluding Anne?)
How can we be sure that some dinosaurs did not develop higher intelligence, or even societies?
No evidence at all of tool use. Whilst the record is scant we would probably have found something.
60 m years is a long time for evidence of anything to survive. With us, the giveaway will probably be the plastic microbeads from our cosmetics.
We have evdence of tool use amongst primates from 3.4 million years ago. Once you get to that stage in the fossilisation process it doesn't really matter if it is 3.4 or 34 or 134 million. If they used tools then we would find evidence if it. Especially given we find nests, eggs and feathers.
Is that fossil evidence, though, rather than actual stone tools?
I think your stipulation as to what constitutes higher intelligence is too narrow, anyway. Tools are initially for killing animals for food and clothing, and building shelters. A vegetarian society of creatures well enough adapted to their surroundings to get by without clothes and houses could spend their time discoursing on philosophy or calculating the value of pi, without leaving much trace.
I was a little surprised by their conclusion given that there are parts of the earth's crust which have survived being chewed up by tectonic activity since the very earliest life on earth, and even the most ancient, fragile soft-bodied lifeforms have repeatedly left detectable traces (though admittedly there are significant gaps in the fossil record). Any civilisation with the planetary reach of ours (probably any industrial civilisation) would surely have left something clearly detectable somewhere around ?
Mr. 43, Edward I's dickishness in his decision-making and elderly lack of vigour cost him in Scotland. That said, he could've won had he simply made smarter choices. Not rewarding the nobles (with land) who were risking life and limb cost him a lot.
His son being pretty inept was also helpful to the Scots.
This was the dilemma of the invading English king. Edward III had the same problem and Henry V had a variation on this with the ransom for James I. Do you reward your own nobles who are reliable but ineffective against the combined opposition of Scottish society or do you try to co-opt the native nobility, who are effective but unreliable? One grant of land is at the expense of the other. You can't do both. Whenever things need sorting out, Scotland has always been good at getting informal working groups to rally round, consisting of younger sons of the nobility and bishops and later lawyers and business people. I guess that's why Scotland has never effectively been occupied long term, unlike Ireland or Wales, with the exception of Cromwell.
The only people already living in Scotland in A.D. 400 were the Picts.
It was subsequently invaded and occupied by the Scotti from Ireland.
But the Picts weren't living in Scotland. They were living in Pictland. The Scots didn't invade themselves. I would date Scotland as a concept that we would recognise today to the Macmalcolm dynasty and in particular to its greatest king David I (reigned 1124-1153).
How can we be sure that some dinosaurs did not develop higher intelligence, or even societies?
No evidence at all of tool use. Whilst the record is scant we would probably have found something.
60 m years is a long time for evidence of anything to survive. With us, the giveaway will probably be the plastic microbeads from our cosmetics.
We have evdence of tool use amongst primates from 3.4 million years ago. Once you get to that stage in the fossilisation process it doesn't really matter if it is 3.4 or 34 or 134 million. If they used tools then we would find evidence if it. Especially given we find nests, eggs and feathers.
Yes, but we *expect* primates to have developed basic stone tools at some time, and therefore are looking for such tools to see when they were first used. We aren't necessarily doing the same for anything from the time of the dinosaurs, even if we knew what to look for.
(Note, I am not claiming they were intelligent).
Even a tool system based on wood would leave some evidence behind.
Labour really don't do any candidate background checks do they. These aren't super secret conversations recorded covertly away from the public domain, they are plastered on social media and Youtube.
How can we be sure that some dinosaurs did not develop higher intelligence, or even societies?
No evidence at all of tool use. Whilst the record is scant we would probably have found something.
60 m years is a long time for evidence of anything to survive. With us, the giveaway will probably be the plastic microbeads from our cosmetics.
We have evdence of tool use amongst primates from 3.4 million years ago. Once you get to that stage in the fossilisation process it doesn't really matter if it is 3.4 or 34 or 134 million. If they used tools then we would find evidence if it. Especially given we find nests, eggs and feathers.
Is that fossil evidence, though, rather than actual stone tools?
I think your stipulation as to what constitutes higher intelligence is too narrow, anyway. Tools are initially for killing animals for food and clothing, and building shelters. A vegetarian society of creatures well enough adapted to their surroundings to get by without clothes and houses could spend their time discoursing on philosophy or calculating the value of pi, without leaving much trace.
I was a little surprised by their conclusion given that there are parts of the earth's crust which have survived being chewed up by tectonic activity since the very earliest life on earth, and even the most ancient, fragile soft-bodied lifeforms have repeatedly left detectable traces (though admittedly there are significant gaps in the fossil record). Any civilisation with the planetary reach of ours (probably any industrial civilisation) would surely have left something clearly detectable somewhere around ?
Yep. The conclusion is very poor. It seems to be based on the mistaken belief that only hard wearing materials survive in the fossil record.
So what's the consensus on this customs union vote? Does it actually matter much?
This one is mainly symbolic, but is a pointer to what might happen in a more substantive vote later.
Will there be a substantive vote later on this issue alone? I don't see how TM can win such a vote since Labour will oppose and there ought to be enough Tory remainer rebels...
There will also be some Labour Leave rebels. 3 or 4 at least.
How can we be sure that some dinosaurs did not develop higher intelligence, or even societies?
No evidence at all of tool use. Whilst the record is scant we would probably have found something.
60 m years is a long time for evidence of anything to survive. With us, the giveaway will probably be the plastic microbeads from our cosmetics.
We have evdence of tool use amongst primates from 3.4 million years ago. Once you get to that stage in the fossilisation process it doesn't really matter if it is 3.4 or 34 or 134 million. If they used tools then we would find evidence if it. Especially given we find nests, eggs and feathers.
Is that fossil evidence, though, rather than actual stone tools?
I think your stipulation as to what constitutes higher intelligence is too narrow, anyway. Tools are initially for killing animals for food and clothing, and building shelters. A vegetarian society of creatures well enough adapted to their surroundings to get by without clothes and houses could spend their time discoursing on philosophy or calculating the value of pi, without leaving much trace.
Any news from PBers campaigning in the local elections?
I found a tenner in someone's front garden on Saturday. I knocked on the door and handed it to them; only afterwards did I realise what it might have looked like! Luckily I had witnesses
How can we be sure that some dinosaurs did not develop higher intelligence, or even societies?
No evidence at all of tool use. Whilst the record is scant we would probably have found something.
60 m years is a long time for evidence of anything to survive. With us, the giveaway will probably be the plastic microbeads from our cosmetics.
We have evdence of tool use amongst primates from 3.4 million years ago. Once you get to that stage in the fossilisation process it doesn't really matter if it is 3.4 or 34 or 134 million. If they used tools then we would find evidence if it. Especially given we find nests, eggs and feathers.
Yes, but we *expect* primates to have developed basic stone tools at some time, and therefore are looking for such tools to see when they were first used. We aren't necessarily doing the same for anything from the time of the dinosaurs, even if we knew what to look for.
(Note, I am not claiming they were intelligent).
Even a tool system based on wood would leave some evidence behind.
Yes, but it would be very scant evidence, and would we recognise it as such?
"Oh look at this strange-shaped fossil. I think it's a piece of wood shaped like a tool." "Nah, it's just like this one over here, but has been twisted and flattened during fossilisation."
And that's assuming the tools they used look like anything we would recognise.
A book (I think Ted Neil's Supercontinent) goes into exactly how little of our civilisation would be in the fossil record in a million years time, yet alone a hundred million, yet alone recognisable.
Any news from PBers campaigning in the local elections?
I found a tenner in someone's front garden on Saturday. I knocked on the door and handed it to them; only afterwards did I realise what it might have looked like! Luckily I had witnesses
Labour really don't do any candidate background checks do they. These aren't super secret conversations recorded covertly away from the public domain, they are plastered on social media and Youtube.
They really need to engage with a social media reputation company to outsource their vetting of candidates, whoever is doing it now clearly isn’t up to the job. It’s also becoming a pattern, which means that every time a candidate is named there’s going to be journalists all over their history.
But it’s clear they don’t care, how else does a vexatious litigant and conspiracy theorist end up selected to contest a marginal seat? There’s going to be several more Jared O’Maras in the next Parliament.
How can we be sure that some dinosaurs did not develop higher intelligence, or even societies?
No evidence at all of tool use. Whilst the record is scant we would probably have found something.
60 m years is a long time for evidence of anything to survive. With us, the giveaway will probably be the plastic microbeads from our cosmetics.
We have evdence of tool use amongst primates from 3.4 million years ago. Once you get to that stage in the fossilisation process it doesn't really matter if it is 3.4 or 34 or 134 million. If they used tools then we would find evidence if it. Especially given we find nests, eggs and feathers.
Yes, but we *expect* primates to have developed basic stone tools at some time, and therefore are looking for such tools to see when they were first used. We aren't necessarily doing the same for anything from the time of the dinosaurs, even if we knew what to look for.
(Note, I am not claiming they were intelligent).
Even a tool system based on wood would leave some evidence behind.
Yes, but it would be very scant evidence, and would we recognise it as such?
"Oh look at this strange-shaped fossil. I think it's a piece of wood shaped like a tool." "Nah, it's just like this one over here, but has been twisted and flattened during fossilisation."
And that's assuming the tools they used look like anything we would recognise.
A book (I think Ted Neil's Supercontinent) goes into exactly how little of our civilisation would be in the fossil record in a million years time, yet alone a hundred million, yet alone recognisable.
I have read it and unfortunately amongst Geologists it us considered pretty poor. Make it a billion years and with subduction he might have a point but a million or even 10 million years is no time at all to remove much of what we have done. I can identify habitation surfaces from a million years ago with some fairly simple chemical tests.
Mr. 43, Edward I's dickishness in his decision-making and elderly lack of vigour cost him in Scotland. That said, he could've won had he simply made smarter choices. Not rewarding the nobles (with land) who were risking life and limb cost him a lot.
His son being pretty inept was also helpful to the Scots.
This was the dilemma of the invading English king. Edward III had the same problem and Henry V had a variation on this with the ransom for James I. Do you reward your own nobles who are reliable but ineffective against the combined opposition of Scottish society or do you try to co-opt the native nobility, who are effective but unreliable? One grant of land is at the expense of the other. You can't do both. Whenever things need sorting out, Scotland has always been good at getting informal working groups to rally round, consisting of younger sons of the nobility and bishops and later lawyers and business people. I guess that's why Scotland has never effectively been occupied long term, unlike Ireland or Wales, with the exception of Cromwell.
The only people already living in Scotland in A.D. 400 were the Picts.
It was subsequently invaded and occupied by the Scotti from Ireland.
But the Picts weren't living in Scotland. They were living in Pictland. The Scots didn't invade themselves. I would date Scotland as a concept that we would recognise today to the Macmalcolm dynasty and in particular to its greatest king David I (reigned 1124-1153).
Since the Normans invaded England (Angles land) and took over from the Anglo Saxons, this must mean we are living in Normandy not England.
Labour really don't do any candidate background checks do they. These aren't super secret conversations recorded covertly away from the public domain, they are plastered on social media and Youtube.
They really need to engage with a social media reputation company to outsource their vetting of candidates, whoever is doing it now clearly isn’t up to the job. It’s also becoming a pattern, which means that every time a candidate is named there’s going to be journalists all over their history.
But it’s clear they don’t care, how else does a vexatious litigant and conspiracy theorist end up selected to contest a marginal seat? There’s going to be several more Jared O’Maras in the next Parliament.
How can we be sure that some dinosaurs did not develop higher intelligence, or even societies?
No evidence at all of tool use. Whilst the record is scant we would probably have found something.
60 m years is a long time for evidence of anything to survive. With us, the giveaway will probably be the plastic microbeads from our cosmetics.
We have evdence of tool use amongst primates from 3.4 million years ago. Once you get to that stage in the fossilisation process it doesn't really matter if it is 3.4 or 34 or 134 million. If they used tools then we would find evidence if it. Especially given we find nests, eggs and feathers.
Yes, but we *expect* primates to have developed basic stone tools at some time, and therefore are looking for such tools to see when they were first used. We aren't necessarily doing the same for anything from the time of the dinosaurs, even if we knew what to look for.
(Note, I am not claiming they were intelligent).
Even a tool system based on wood would leave some evidence behind.
Yes, but it would be very scant evidence, and would we recognise it as such?
"Oh look at this strange-shaped fossil. I think it's a piece of wood shaped like a tool." "Nah, it's just like this one over here, but has been twisted and flattened during fossilisation."
And that's assuming the tools they used look like anything we would recognise.
A book (I think Ted Neil's Supercontinent) goes into exactly how little of our civilisation would be in the fossil record in a million years time, yet alone a hundred million, yet alone recognisable.
I have read it and unfortunately amongst Geologists it us considered pretty poor. Make it a billion years and with subduction he might have a point but a million or even 10 million years is no time at all to remove much of what we have done. I can identify habitation surfaces from a million years ago with some fairly simple chemical tests.
Ah, thanks. I went to a talk by him about ten years ago in Bath. As a matter of interest, how do you identify habitation surfaces from so long ago chemically?
Whilst listening to his talk, I did wonder how well some of the mass concrete we've poured over the last hundred years would last, yet alone silted-up quarries.
Edit: and having fetched it off my bookshelf, he is talking about hundreds of millions and billions of years.
Any news from PBers campaigning in the local elections?
Getting a great reception on door step.
Can certainly say the Tory support on the doorstep is as a solid as it was for last years council elections, but what we don’t know is how good our opposition is. You tend to find that those who don’t vote for you just are generally negative more often than relaying who they will vote for. So canvassing can miss the hardening up of a single opposition.
I can only assume the level pegging overall in the polls hides a quite significant change of support. If the movement in London is so great away from the tories than the counter balance is a growth in support elsewhere. Northern leave voting towns are about to have a better than expected local election I’m guessing.
(Shouldn’t be picking up Council seats eight years into government....)
Compensation - each case is painful and often harrowing for those involved, the state has let them down, and has happened for some time and people will be compensated under an independent person
Compensation - each case is painful and often harrowing for those involved, the state has let them down, and has happened for some time and people will be compensated under an independent person
Any news from PBers campaigning in the local elections?
Getting a great reception on door step.
You're pushing how wonderful Theresa May is then?
(I hesitate to even ask - for which party? ;-) )
These are local elections.
It's all about Potholes, Potholes, Potholes - a really serious issue in Bucks where the road infrastructure is crumbling and the Conservative leader of the Couny Council has given up attempting to mend the roads as the problem needs billions spent on replacement roads.
Certainly North Bucks roads are now like a third world country or France in the 1960s for those around then.
Compensation - each case is painful and often harrowing for those involved, the state has let them down, and has happened for some time and people will be compensated under an independent person
Amber Rudd quite emotional
Is that because she's just managed to save herself from the sack?
Any news from PBers campaigning in the local elections?
Getting a great reception on door step.
You're pushing how wonderful Theresa May is then?
(I hesitate to even ask - for which party? ;-) )
These are local elections.
It's all about Potholes, Potholes, Potholes - a really serious issue in Bucks where the road infrastructure is crumbling and the Conservative leader of the Couny Council has given up attempting to mend the roads as the problem needs billions spent on replacement roads.
Certainly North Bucks roads are now like a third world country or France in the 1960s for those around then.
Compensation - each case is painful and often harrowing for those involved, the state has let them down, and has happened for some time and people will be compensated under an independent person
Amber Rudd quite emotional
Is that because she's just managed to save herself from the sack?
I think Corbyn saved her when he cocked up at PMQ's. That was the moment of greatest danger for her
Labour are in danger of giving the impression that they pay little heed to illegal immigration, and even immigration, which is still a big issue in the Country and special for the working class
It’s not true. The wind rush generation were never required to apply for citizenship and not granted it unless applied. Being born in the UK is not sufficient to acquire citizenship. Your parents need to be British. It could be sensed as an anomaly, something that should have been factored in as rules over the last decade and a half have increasingly made employment, housing and access to non emergency health determinant on entitlement.
But them (children of windrush) not actually being citizens is a symptom of the 1982 immigration act.
I found a tenner in someone's front garden on Saturday. I knocked on the door and handed it to them; only afterwards did I realise what it might have looked like! Luckily I had witnesses
Interesting... I found a tenner on a doorstep when I was leafleting on Sunday. I assumed it might be there for some good reason so I ignored it, left it where it was, and just posted the leaflet through the letterbox. The house looked like it might be unoccupied though.
Compensation - each case is painful and often harrowing for those involved, the state has let them down, and has happened for some time and people will be compensated under an independent person
Amber Rudd quite emotional
I suspect if I’d received the hospital pass from Theresa, and been subject to the last week or so’s barrage, I might be slightly emotional too...
It’s not true. The wind rush generation were never required to apply for citizenship and not granted it unless applied. Being born in the UK is not sufficient to acquire citizenship. Your parents need to be British. It could be sensed as an anomaly, something that should have been factored in as rules over the last decade and a half have increasingly made employment, housing and access to non emergency health determinant on entitlement.
But them (children of windrush) not actually being citizens is a symptom of the 1982 immigration act.
But their parents were British if they came from the Crown colonies.
Mr. 43, Edward I's dickishness in his decision-making and elderly lack of vigour cost him in Scotland. That said, he could've won had he simply made smarter choices. Not rewarding the nobles (with land) who were risking life and limb cost him a lot.
His son being pretty inept was also helpful to the Scots.
This was the dilemma of the invading English king. Edward III had the same problem and Henry V had a variation on this with the ransom for James I. Do you reward your own nobles who are reliable but ineffective against the combined opposition of Scottish society or do you try to co-opt the native nobility, who are effective but unreliable? One grant of land is at the expense of the other. You can't do both. Whenever things need sorting out, Scotland has always been good at getting informal working groups to rally round, consisting of younger sons of the nobility and bishops and later lawyers and business people. I guess that's why Scotland has never effectively been occupied long term, unlike Ireland or Wales, with the exception of Cromwell.
The only people already living in Scotland in A.D. 400 were the Picts.
It was subsequently invaded and occupied by the Scotti from Ireland.
But the Picts weren't living in Scotland. They were living in Pictland. The Scots didn't invade themselves. I would date Scotland as a concept that we would recognise today to the Macmalcolm dynasty and in particular to its greatest king David I (reigned 1124-1153).
Since the Normans invaded England (Angles land) and took over from the Anglo Saxons, this must mean we are living in Normandy not England.
Fair point. My reply is that England was more developed as a functioning country at the time of the Norman invasion than Pictland was at the time of the invasion of Scots from Ulster. Pictland only covered part of present day Scotland (mostly north and east of Stirling) - there were other native Brittonic tribes in southern Scotland that hung on after the collapse of the Picts. The Scots and the Picts co-existed for a while. There were concurrent English invasions from Northumbria into Lothian, Fife and Galloway, and later Viking invasions from Norway to the Hebrides and the west coast, which was the original Scottish heartland. It's complicated.
It’s not true. The wind rush generation were never required to apply for citizenship and not granted it unless applied. Being born in the UK is not sufficient to acquire citizenship. Your parents need to be British. It could be sensed as an anomaly, something that should have been factored in as rules over the last decade and a half have increasingly made employment, housing and access to non emergency health determinant on entitlement.
But them (children of windrush) not actually being citizens is a symptom of the 1982 immigration act.
The Windrush generation arrived in the UK, not as migrants, but as British subjects exercising a form of “freedom of movement” within the borders of the British territories. The British Nationality Act 1948 imparted the status of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC status) to all British subjects connected with the United Kingdom or a British colony.
Compensation - each case is painful and often harrowing for those involved, the state has let them down, and has happened for some time and people will be compensated under an independent person
Amber Rudd quite emotional
Is that because she's just managed to save herself from the sack?
I think Corbyn saved her when he cocked up at PMQ's. That was the moment of greatest danger for her
Labour are in danger of giving the impression that they pay little heed to illegal immigration, and even immigration, which is still a big issue in the Country and special for the working class
Yup, Corbyn missed a wide open goal at PMQs by making an assumption about facts that could have been checked. He has a huge team of researchers (£6m of Short money) at his disposal to prepare him for these sessions and missed completely.
He also didn’t suggest that Rudd should consider her position, as he was determined to pin everything on the PM. Rudd could have been toast by Wednesday night if Corbyn had played his cards right.
Compensation - each case is painful and often harrowing for those involved, the state has let them down, and has happened for some time and people will be compensated under an independent person
Amber Rudd quite emotional
I suspect if I’d received the hospital pass from Theresa, and been subject to the last week or so’s barrage, I might be slightly emotional too...
If she'd offered this two weeks ago, she'd look a hero.
As it appears to have been dragged out of her, she looks a zero.
Good news, but I can’t help thinking they should have delayed the announcement until tomorrow if they wanted it to make the news bulletins.
I dunno. this might be a attempt to bring an end to the entire sad sorry mess, so post baby news cycle the media have moved on completely.
Maybe, but from a purely political view it would make sense for everyone to know the story had a happy ending - especially a fortnight before the local elections.
If the story had finished with the HS resigning, today would have been the perfect day to do it - we all laugh at Jo Moore but she was completely right, her mistake was to write down what everyone was thinking.
It’s not true. The wind rush generation were never required to apply for citizenship and not granted it unless applied. Being born in the UK is not sufficient to acquire citizenship. Your parents need to be British. It could be sensed as an anomaly, something that should have been factored in as rules over the last decade and a half have increasingly made employment, housing and access to non emergency health determinant on entitlement.
But them (children of windrush) not actually being citizens is a symptom of the 1982 immigration act.
You are completely wrong - being born in the UK with a parent who has Indefinite Leave to Remain (as a Windrush immigrant would) is enough to be British.
Any news from PBers campaigning in the local elections?
Getting a great reception on door step.
You're pushing how wonderful Theresa May is then?
(I hesitate to even ask - for which party? ;-) )
These are local elections.
It's all about Potholes, Potholes, Potholes - a really serious issue in Bucks where the road infrastructure is crumbling and the Conservative leader of the Couny Council has given up attempting to mend the roads as the problem needs billions spent on replacement roads.
Certainly North Bucks roads are now like a third world country or France in the 1960s for those around then.
I think we will see wide variations in the outcomes from LA to LA. Conservatives will blame Labour councils, Labour will blame the Conservative government, and Lib Dems will claim they are the local champions. My authority is traditionally NOC and in recent years has seem LD-Green coalition, Con-LD, Lab-LD, and now Lab-Ind. Labour need three gains to take overall control and are targeting the 5 Lib Dems seeking re-election. We also have a concurrent by-election in a Con ward which Labour have won recently. In my opinion - too close to call.
It’s not true. The wind rush generation were never required to apply for citizenship and not granted it unless applied. Being born in the UK is not sufficient to acquire citizenship. Your parents need to be British. It could be sensed as an anomaly, something that should have been factored in as rules over the last decade and a half have increasingly made employment, housing and access to non emergency health determinant on entitlement.
But them (children of windrush) not actually being citizens is a symptom of the 1982 immigration act.
The Windrush generation arrived in the UK, not as migrants, but as British subjects exercising a form of “freedom of movement” within the borders of the British territories. The British Nationality Act 1948 imparted the status of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC status) to all British subjects connected with the United Kingdom or a British colony.
Comments
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/are-we-earths-only-civilization/557180/
if you’re not explicitly looking for it, you might not see it. That recognition was, perhaps, the most concrete conclusion of our study....
I don't see how TM can win such a vote since Labour will oppose and there ought to be enough Tory remainer rebels...
The only people already living in Scotland in A.D. 400 were the Picts.
It was subsequently invaded and occupied by the Scotti from Ireland.
https://archive.archaeology.org/0107/abstracts/scotland.html
I was a little surprised by their conclusion given that there are parts of the earth's crust which have survived being chewed up by tectonic activity since the very earliest life on earth, and even the most ancient, fragile soft-bodied lifeforms have repeatedly left detectable traces (though admittedly there are significant gaps in the fossil record).
Any civilisation with the planetary reach of ours (probably any industrial civilisation) would surely have left something clearly detectable somewhere around ?
https://order-order.com/2018/04/23/two-more-labour-candidates-blasted-illegal-sexuality-women-and-jewish-money/
Labour really don't do any candidate background checks do they. These aren't super secret conversations recorded covertly away from the public domain, they are plastered on social media and Youtube.
"Oh look at this strange-shaped fossil. I think it's a piece of wood shaped like a tool."
"Nah, it's just like this one over here, but has been twisted and flattened during fossilisation."
And that's assuming the tools they used look like anything we would recognise.
A book (I think Ted Neil's Supercontinent) goes into exactly how little of our civilisation would be in the fossil record in a million years time, yet alone a hundred million, yet alone recognisable.
But it’s clear they don’t care, how else does a vexatious litigant and conspiracy theorist end up selected to contest a marginal seat? There’s going to be several more Jared O’Maras in the next Parliament.
(I hesitate to even ask - for which party? ;-) )
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43869377
Whilst listening to his talk, I did wonder how well some of the mass concrete we've poured over the last hundred years would last, yet alone silted-up quarries.
Edit: and having fetched it off my bookshelf, he is talking about hundreds of millions and billions of years.
Be interesting to see what Rudd has to say given this....
Can certainly say the Tory support on the doorstep is as a solid as it was for last years council elections, but what we don’t know is how good our opposition is. You tend to find that those who don’t vote for you just are generally negative more often than relaying who they will vote for. So canvassing can miss the hardening up of a single opposition.
I can only assume the level pegging overall in the polls hides a quite significant change of support. If the movement in London is so great away from the tories than the counter balance is a growth in support elsewhere. Northern leave voting towns are about to have a better than expected local election I’m guessing.
(Shouldn’t be picking up Council seats eight years into government....)
These are local elections.
It's all about Potholes, Potholes, Potholes - a really serious issue in Bucks where the road infrastructure is crumbling and the Conservative leader of the Couny Council has given up attempting to mend the roads as the problem needs billions spent on replacement roads.
Certainly North Bucks roads are now like a third world country or France in the 1960s for those around then.
https://twitter.com/davidlammy/status/988444337456451584
Labour are in danger of giving the impression that they pay little heed to illegal immigration, and even immigration, which is still a big issue in the Country and special for the working class
It could be sensed as an anomaly, something that should have been factored in as rules over the last decade and a half have increasingly made employment, housing and access to non emergency health determinant on entitlement.
But them (children of windrush) not actually being citizens is a symptom of the 1982 immigration act.
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/windrush-generation-is-not-alone.aspx
He also didn’t suggest that Rudd should consider her position, as he was determined to pin everything on the PM. Rudd could have been toast by Wednesday night if Corbyn had played his cards right.
As it appears to have been dragged out of her, she looks a zero.
If the story had finished with the HS resigning, today would have been the perfect day to do it - we all laugh at Jo Moore but she was completely right, her mistake was to write down what everyone was thinking.