I do hope one conclusion of the public inquiry is that a new model of pandemic growth is built from scratch with no one from the UCL team anywhere near the work.
Imperial? Anyway what surprised me was that once the code quality issues were known, HMG did not immediately commission several firms to clean up the code (not rewrite it in another language, which is most programmers' response to any request in my experience).
Didn't Imperial tell the Guardian that up to 200m people could die from bird flu in 2005, when only a couple of hundred did. And that 50k people could die from BSE when only a couple of hundred did.
The question is, why does anybody still listen to those publicity-seeking clowns?
Do you not understand the meaning of the word “could”?
Absolutely. But the might as well have said that nobody could die from it, or everybody in the world could. It would have been about as useful.
They love getting headlines. They get headlines from scaremongering. And policy makers fall for it. While more sober and rigorous predictions are ignored.
Is it them going for headlines or the idiots in the media picking it up and ignoring the detail.
It (or at least it was until recent events) true that people got these stories so much in the media that they then thought they were nonsense (swine flu another) because it never happened, but the point is there is serious potential for devastation.
If bird flu was easily transmissible we would be in big trouble. Same at the time with HIV (imagine if you could have got it then from a sneeze). On the other hand swine flu was easily transmissible but turned out to be a wimp. Re BSE, they just didn't know and there were various scenarios.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Finlands in the way.
Hmmm, he could go the other way, no? Send the navy into the Baltic and troops through the Baltic States (they won't mind) into Denmark and over the bridge. Easy.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
One of the things that used to sadden me when commuting through Liverpool Street was the misuse of the Kinderstransport memorial to hold drinks cartons and other rubbish, though if you do not know what the memorial is and have not read the plaque to find out, it is more likely to be thoughtlessness rather than political comment.
Yes, we need to keep a sense of proportion. The real problem about memorials and statues is that hardly anyone knows what they're about or bothers to read the fading plaques that (perhaps) explain. I don't support defacing them (or peeing on them), nor do I think that someone who does so should serve a sentence greater than what is usually imposed for manslaughter. My Marxist streak thinks that we are allowing a systemic issue (do we have institutional and societal racism?) to be diverted into a symbolic issue (should statues be defaced?) and it's playing into the hands of people who like the status quo to let that happen.
Similarly, in the USA, although the latest police killing is another example of the excessive use of lethal force, it's a less clear case than Floyd since the guy was pointing a weapon and it was a decision of the moment rather than four minutes of strangulation.
I think there's a genuine problem for black people in Britain and the US which has been played down for too long, and the disorders have raised attention. We now need to focus on what can be done to improve it, rather than mess around with statues.
It is why the police shouldn't have allowed the mob to pull down the statue in Bristol in the first place. The original community decision to put a plaque explaining this guys dark history is was what should have happened. The result is the statue isn't being celebrated, it is educating. And that should be the solution for most of these problematic statues.
But now we have allowed the mob to do something and people are copying this lead.
It is about time for the government to do something proactive rather than keep condemning streetfights when they occur. Those who disagree should take a look at this thread header on what is by far the most important open internet forum used by British soldiers. Entitled "How do we get our country back?", it says exactly what you might imagine, given that title. The author foams and shouts that governments have become ever more left wing, that the white majority has long been ignored in the interests of aliens and immigrants and socialists and perverts who would probably prefer him to cut his c*ck off, and so on, and sweetly suggests that things in Britain are now as they were in Germany in the 1920s and if nothing is done then there will be the same result. Never mind which political party it was in 1920s Germany that was saying more or less exactly, mutatis mutandis, what he is saying now. Of course he knows damned well what he is saying.
Here's what the government should announce:
* all positive or neutral commemoration of slaveowners or those who licensed slavers will be ended, to include the removal of statues to Charles I, Charles II, James II, and Cromwell;
* a memorial to slaves and victims of the British empire will be erected in a very central position in London, e.g. close to the Palace of Westminster or perhaps adjacent to the Cenotaph in Whitehall;
* legislation will be introduced with heavy penalties for damaging war memorials or other memorials to the dead, brutalised, or enslaved; and this legislation will be strictly enforced.
Of course there will be grey areas, but sort it.
If Cambridge University can face up to slavery, then the British government ought to be able to.
Last point: it bothers me that some talk about the "desecration" of a statue of Winston Churchill. Such a statue is not a grave and cannot be "desecrated" because it is not sacred, except for loonies who think Churchill was divine or a saint, and who believe 10 strokes of the birch would be suitable for those who stick postage stamps on envelopes with the queen's head upside down. It is not sacred even in the sense that war memorials to the fallen are, or all graves are, as places where people really do stop and think for a short while to remember the dead in solemn (and not triumphalist) fashion.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
That is what the Tories did with West Midlands mayor, Andy Street was John Lewis big bod...but he was up against PB favourite fortune teller, Sion Simon, so not exactly Premier League political battle.
Good call, a Londoner version of Andy Street. Is Charlie Mullins from Pimlico Plumbers still a Tory member?
No...he hates them now, because of Brexit. I believe he is Lib Dem these days.
He was one of the people funding Mr Stop Brexit to shout all day over the tv reporters.
Oh, damn. Who else have we got, need to find a successful businessman known favourably to most of London?
People aren't protesting against Churchill because of he was bros with Mussolini, or that he gassed Kurds or had the army shoot Welsh miners it's because he's a conspicuous symbol of the British establishment and what Mao called, The Four Olds. It's just the vibe rather than anything he did in particular.
Yes, I think there is an element of kicking against Britain's maudlin obsession with poppyism.
The English obsession with WW2 is truly baffling to me. The only other country that comes close in this regard in my experience is Russia.
NA BERLIN!!!!
England has a lot in common with Russia, and indeed Turkey. Removed from the European mainstream, increasingly in thrall to nostalgic nationalism, can't admit to crimes committed during its imperial era, leader playing on nationalist grievances, educated middle class increasingly isolated and accused of lacking sufficient patriotism.
No we are more like Switzerland or Norway, seeking to play a part in Europe without being subsumed into a half-baked superstate.
As for admitting the crimes of our Imperial era, our record glows in comparison to France's.
This Swiss/Norway option sounds fantastic. Why aren't we having it after December 31st?
The EU wouldn't offer us the Swiss option. They hate it.
Yes they did and it was a mistake as many pointed out at the time. For balance, the leave leaders rejected it too. The pragmatists who supported it have generally been kicked out of public life. Sad.
The EU is usually dogmatic and inflexible. That's why it has bad relations with all its neighbours, even the well-meaning ones, in one way or another and many of its members.
The provision in its constitution that it should have good relations with its neighbours is a standing joke, like "subsidiarity" always was.
I don't think it's likely that the Tories win London no matter the candidate. This being the case, Sean Bailey should get full support, the Tories should fight tooth and nail for every vote, and just use it as a learning exercise.
Shaun Bailey is not a basket case just yet. There have been five London Mayoral elections. Labour won two of them. Just two. Not even half. CCHQ needs to grow a pair and stop this endless whinging that "the system" is biased against them in Scotland, Wales, London, the north.
Indeed. If the Tories presented an attractive platform, and were fronted by likeable, competent, normal people, they would perform well electorally among Londoners, Scots, Welsh and northern English.
“The system” is heavily in their favour, so their lack of success must be down to their ugly agenda, their repulsive character, their gross and increasingly obvious incompetence, and the fact that most of their high profile figures are complete weirdos.
Winning elections is not rocket science. You just need to be reasonably ok, not the best on the planet. That’s why all Johnson’s guff about his “world-beating” policies backfires. It is so self-evidently untrue. Johnson is not the best person in the building, let alone the planet.
Just wait till the Brexit post cognitive dissonance kicks in. Then we’ll see how “the system” affects the Tory vote in the English Midlands and South.
That's a fair point about hyperbole.
Do people really want 'world beating' ? Its usually hard work and very costly.
Off Topic: Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who gave good suggestions yesterday regarding getting the 1966 Final to be shown offline.
Lots of good ideas, though going down the purchasing the DVD from Amazon route. Sometimes the simplest solutions really are the best and don't know why I didn't think of that. Sometimes don't see the wood for the trees.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
That is what the Tories did with West Midlands mayor, Andy Street was John Lewis big bod...but he was up against PB favourite fortune teller, Sion Simon, so not exactly Premier League political battle.
Good call, a Londoner version of Andy Street. Is Charlie Mullins from Pimlico Plumbers still a Tory member?
No...he hates them now, because of Brexit. I believe he is Lib Dem these days.
He was one of the people funding Mr Stop Brexit to shout all day over the tv reporters.
Oh, damn. Who else have we got, need to find a successful businessman known favourably to most of London?
You're not eligible, you live abroad.
...and not that successful, and no-one in London bar a handful of friends and colleagues knows me!
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
One of the things that used to sadden me when commuting through Liverpool Street was the misuse of the Kinderstransport memorial to hold drinks cartons and other rubbish, though if you do not know what the memorial is and have not read the plaque to find out, it is more likely to be thoughtlessness rather than political comment.
Yes, we need to keep a sense of proportion. The real problem about memorials and statues is that hardly anyone knows what they're about or bothers to read the fading plaques that (perhaps) explain. I don't support defacing them (or peeing on them), nor do I think that someone who does so should serve a sentence greater than what is usually imposed for manslaughter. My Marxist streak thinks that we are allowing a systemic issue (do we have institutional and societal racism?) to be diverted into a symbolic issue (should statues be defaced?) and it's playing into the hands of people who like the status quo to let that happen.
Similarly, in the USA, although the latest police killing is another example of the excessive use of lethal force, it's a less clear case than Floyd since the guy was pointing a weapon and it was a decision of the moment rather than four minutes of strangulation.
I think there's a genuine problem for black people in Britain and the US which has been played down for too long, and the disorders have raised attention. We now need to focus on what can be done to improve it, rather than mess around with statues.
It is why the police shouldn't have allowed the mob to pull down the statue in Bristol in the first place. The original community decision to put a plaque explaining this guys dark history is was what should have happened. The result is the statue isn't being celebrated, it is educating. And that should be the solution for most of these problematic statues.
But now we have allowed the mob to do something and people are copying this lead.
It is about time for the government to do something proactive rather than keep condemning streetfights when they occur. Those who disagree should take a look at this thread header on what is by far the most important open internet forum used by British soldiers. Entitled "How do we get our country back?", it says exactly what you might imagine, given that title. The author foams and shouts that governments have become ever more left wing, that the white majority has long been ignored in the interests of aliens and immigrants and socialists and perverts who would probably prefer him to cut his c*ck off, and so on, and sweetly suggests that things in Britain are now as they were in Germany in the 1920s and if nothing is done then there will be the same result. Never mind which political party it was in 1920s Germany that was saying more or less exactly, mutatis mutandis, what he is saying now. Of course he knows damned well what he is saying.
Here's what the government should announce:
* all positive or neutral commemoration of slaveowners or those who licensed slavers will be ended, to include the removal of statues to Charles I, Charles II, James II, and Cromwell;
* a memorial to slaves and victims of the British empire will be erected in a very central position in London, e.g. close to the Palace of Westminster or perhaps adjacent to the Cenotaph in Whitehall;
* legislation will be introduced with heavy penalties for damaging war memorials or other memorials to the dead, brutalised, or enslaved; and this legislation will be strictly enforced.
Of course there will be grey areas, but sort it.
If Cambridge University can face up to slavery, then the British government ought to be able to.
Last point: it bothers me that some talk about the "desecration" of a statue to Winston Churchill. Such a statue cannot be "desecrated" because it is not sacred, except for loonies who think Churchill was divine or a saint. It is not sacred even in the sense that war memorials to the fallen are, or all graves are, as places where people really do stop and think for a short while to remember the dead in solemn (and not triumphalist) fashion.
Why in the middle of negotiating Brexit and a pandemic is this even an issue. I would kick it to an enquiry appoint someone (who I didn't really like) and let them handle it.
It's the perfect thing you could give Sajid say to give him something do.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
That is what the Tories did with West Midlands mayor, Andy Street was John Lewis big bod...but he was up against PB favourite fortune teller, Sion Simon, so not exactly Premier League political battle.
Good call, a Londoner version of Andy Street. Is Charlie Mullins from Pimlico Plumbers still a Tory member?
No...he hates them now, because of Brexit. I believe he is Lib Dem these days.
He was one of the people funding Mr Stop Brexit to shout all day over the tv reporters.
Oh, damn. Who else have we got, need to find a successful businessman known favourably to most of London?
You're not eligible, you live abroad.
...and not that successful, and no-one in London bar a handful of friends and colleagues knows me!
So to be clear - still a better candidate than Khan or Bailey, just not eligible?
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
Until 1997 the Tories needed to win London as, along with the Midlands, it was the key swing region in the country, almost always voting for the party which won the general election.
Now however London is the safest Labour region in the UK, as 2019 showed even less of a prospect for the Tories than the North of England and Wales, so the Tories do not need to win London to win a general election outside some marginal seats in the suburbs.
Indeed the Tories now only hold 3 seats in the whole of inner London, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and 2/3 of those are marginal seats
Yep, the Tories have given up on London as a place in which they can win.
Bit like Labour and Scotland.
You say that..
'Scotland vital to Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, says Ian Murray'
Of course ruling out Indy ref II and grubbing about with the SCons for the unalloyed Unionist vote could be construed as giving up, but never let it be said that SLab won't give every losing strategy a damned good try, several tries in fact.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
One of the things that used to sadden me when commuting through Liverpool Street was the misuse of the Kinderstransport memorial to hold drinks cartons and other rubbish, though if you do not know what the memorial is and have not read the plaque to find out, it is more likely to be thoughtlessness rather than political comment.
Yes, we need to keep a sense of proportion. The real problem about memorials and statues is that hardly anyone knows what they're about or bothers to read the fading plaques that (perhaps) explain. I don't support defacing them (or peeing on them), nor do I think that someone who does so should serve a sentence greater than what is usually imposed for manslaughter. My Marxist streak thinks that we are allowing a systemic issue (do we have institutional and societal racism?) to be diverted into a symbolic issue (should statues be defaced?) and it's playing into the hands of people who like the status quo to let that happen.
Similarly, in the USA, although the latest police killing is another example of the excessive use of lethal force, it's a less clear case than Floyd since the guy was pointing a weapon and it was a decision of the moment rather than four minutes of strangulation.
I think there's a genuine problem for black people in Britain and the US which has been played down for too long, and the disorders have raised attention. We now need to focus on what can be done to improve it, rather than mess around with statues.
It is why the police shouldn't have allowed the mob to pull down the statue in Bristol in the first place. The original community decision to put a plaque explaining this guys dark history is was what should have happened. The result is the statue isn't being celebrated, it is educating. And that should be the solution for most of these problematic statues.
But now we have allowed the mob to do something and people are copying this lead.
It is about time for the government to do something proactive rather than keep condemning streetfights when they occur. Those who disagree should take a look at this thread header on what is by far the most important open internet forum used by British soldiers. Entitled "How do we get our country back?", it says exactly what you might imagine, given that title. The author foams and shouts that governments have become ever more left wing, that the white majority has long been ignored in the interests of aliens and immigrants and socialists and perverts who would probably prefer him to cut his c*ck off, and so on, and sweetly suggests that things in Britain are now as they were in Germany in the 1920s and if nothing is done then there will be the same result. Never mind which political party it was in 1920s Germany that was saying more or less exactly, mutatis mutandis, what he is saying now. Of course he knows damned well what he is saying.
Here's what the government should announce:
* all positive or neutral commemoration of slaveowners or those who licensed slavers will be ended, to include the removal of statues to Charles I, Charles II, James II, and Cromwell;
* a memorial to slaves and victims of the British empire will be erected in a very central position in London, e.g. close to the Palace of Westminster or perhaps adjacent to the Cenotaph in Whitehall;
* legislation will be introduced with heavy penalties for damaging war memorials or other memorials to the dead, brutalised, or enslaved; and this legislation will be strictly enforced.
Of course there will be grey areas, but sort it.
If Cambridge University can face up to slavery, then the British government ought to be able to.
Last point: it bothers me that some talk about the "desecration" of a statue to Winston Churchill. Such a statue cannot be "desecrated" because it is not sacred, except for loonies who think Churchill was divine or a saint. It is not sacred even in the sense that war memorials to the fallen are, or all graves are, as places where people really do stop and think for a short while to remember the dead in solemn (and not triumphalist) fashion.
Why in the middle of negotiating Brexit and a pandemic is this even an issue. I would kick it to an enquiry appoint someone and let them handle it.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
One of the things that used to sadden me when commuting through Liverpool Street was the misuse of the Kinderstransport memorial to hold drinks cartons and other rubbish, though if you do not know what the memorial is and have not read the plaque to find out, it is more likely to be thoughtlessness rather than political comment.
Yes, we need to keep a sense of proportion. The real problem about memorials and statues is that hardly anyone knows what they're about or bothers to read the fading plaques that (perhaps) explain. I don't support defacing them (or peeing on them), nor do I think that someone who does so should serve a sentence greater than what is usually imposed for manslaughter. My Marxist streak thinks that we are allowing a systemic issue (do we have institutional and societal racism?) to be diverted into a symbolic issue (should statues be defaced?) and it's playing into the hands of people who like the status quo to let that happen.
Similarly, in the USA, although the latest police killing is another example of the excessive use of lethal force, it's a less clear case than Floyd since the guy was pointing a weapon and it was a decision of the moment rather than four minutes of strangulation.
I think there's a genuine problem for black people in Britain and the US which has been played down for too long, and the disorders have raised attention. We now need to focus on what can be done to improve it, rather than mess around with statues.
It is why the police shouldn't have allowed the mob to pull down the statue in Bristol in the first place. The original community decision to put a plaque explaining this guys dark history is was what should have happened. The result is the statue isn't being celebrated, it is educating. And that should be the solution for most of these problematic statues.
But now we have allowed the mob to do something and people are copying this lead.
It is about time for the government to do something proactive rather than keep condemning streetfights when they occur. Those who disagree should take a look at this thread header on what is by far the most important open internet forum used by British soldiers. Entitled "How do we get our country back?", it says exactly what you might imagine, given that title. The author foams and shouts that governments have become ever more left wing, that the white majority has long been ignored in the interests of aliens and immigrants and socialists and perverts who would probably prefer him to cut his c*ck off, and so on, and sweetly suggests that things in Britain are now as they were in Germany in the 1920s and if nothing is done then there will be the same result. Never mind which political party it was in 1920s Germany that was saying more or less exactly, mutatis mutandis, what he is saying now. Of course he knows damned well what he is saying.
Here's what the government should announce:
* all positive or neutral commemoration of slaveowners or those who licensed slavers will be ended, to include the removal of statues to Charles I, Charles II, James II, and Cromwell;
* a memorial to slaves and victims of the British empire will be erected in a very central position in London, e.g. close to the Palace of Westminster or perhaps adjacent to the Cenotaph in Whitehall;
* legislation will be introduced with heavy penalties for damaging war memorials or other memorials to the dead, brutalised, or enslaved; and this legislation will be strictly enforced.
Of course there will be grey areas, but sort it.
If Cambridge University can face up to slavery, then the British government ought to be able to.
Last point: it bothers me that some talk about the "desecration" of a statue to Winston Churchill. Such a statue cannot be "desecrated" because it is not sacred, except for loonies who think Churchill was divine or a saint. It is not sacred even in the sense that war memorials to the fallen are, or all graves are, as places where people really do stop and think for a short while to remember the dead in solemn (and not triumphalist) fashion.
Why in the middle of negotiating Brexit and a pandemic is this even an issue. I would kick it to an enquiry appoint someone and let them handle it.
People are bored.
The devil finds work for idle hands.
This is my biggest concern, no school, college, uni or work for many people for the foreseeable future and a big jump in unemployment to come.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
He had a bladder full of lager and he thought he could piss wherever he liked. There is no way he did it deliberately by the memorial to PC Palmer, but he certainly did it openly in the street and did not give it a second thought. It's a minor infraction, but it is perfect in its symbolism. He was there to protect traditional British values.
Well perhaps he was. If you interviewed the residents of various resort towns both here and on the continent and asked them to list some traditional British values, I bet "wazzing in the street" would feature quite strongly.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
I'm going to make myself unpopular.
If that is all he did I do not view it as an offence of enormous seriousness in the grand scheme of things.
And if it leads to calls for "lock up and throw away in the key!" - just based on that image and nothing else - I will not be joining in.
I very much doubt thats an unpopular view, prison should not be for people urinating in the street.
Wasn’t he urinating to the side anyway? My guess is he through the it was a convenient stone and either didn’t see or didn’t realise what the memorial was
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
Until 1997 the Tories needed to win London as, along with the Midlands, it was the key swing region in the country, almost always voting for the party which won the general election.
Now however London is the safest Labour region in the UK, as 2019 showed even less of a prospect for the Tories than the North of England and Wales, so the Tories do not need to win London to win a general election outside a few seats mostly in the suburbs.
Indeed despite a UK wide majority of 80 the Tories now only hold 3 seats in the whole of inner London, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and 2/3 of those are marginal seats
That’s a slippery slope. Imagine if the SNP had taken a similar attitude to the impenetrable Labour fortresses of the Central Belt during the 1990s and 2000s. We would have failed to slowly but steadily build up our bases in dozens of Labour seats with immense majorities. Those tough, thankless decades of hard slog and preparation made the eventual breakthrough possible. It did not happen overnight.
Sounds to me like the Tories have simply given up on London. Unwise.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Simples? Really? What about him not having any interest whatsoever in doing so?
I'm no fan of Putin, but I don't think he is sitting there weighing up the odds on which countries to invade.
I suspect the only ones that comes to mind are ones where there is an historic relationship.
British/English exceptionalism is psychologically incapable of accepting that the UK just isn't really worth invading. Getting rid of Trident would be an admission of irrelevance too far.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
On a scale of zero to Johnson-refusing-to-pay-for-an-abortion how likely do you think it will be that Russia will think invading and occupying the UK is worth the cost over the 30 year life of the Dreadnought boats?
I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age.
He didn't exactly do it on his own.
True, but there's only so far one can plausibly play down Churchill's role. Britain would probably have capitulated without him, and it is unlikely that this would've made the world a better place in the long run...
IF, and it's big if on purpose, the films and so on are correct Lord Halifax was the alternative choice as PM and he was for a 'negotiated peace' with Hitler. Who...... allegedly and for a while at any rate ...... wasn't that keen on invading, although the force was being readied. Whether Halifax's 'negotiated peace' would have worked we'll never know. Hitler would still have attacked Russia.
Well, the ‘films’ are correct and Halifax was the alternative. There are about three accounts of what happened, but there was simply no third figure of comparable stature at the time. The most plausible account states that Halifax himself felt it would be impossible to lead a government from the Lords.
Interestingly Halifax himself wasn’t considered an arch appeaser. He isn’t mentioned in Guilty Men, for example. He was the key driver of the guarantee to Poland. He also became Churchill’s deputy for a brief time after Chamberlain’s death. There is a suggestion that he wanted to make peace not because he was sympathetic to Hitler, whom he knew well and despised utterly* but because he believed Britain had no choice and that the war was over. In this he proved, fortunately, to be wrong, but it wasn’t a ridiculous position at the time.
*Oddly though - and it says much about him and not in a good way - he rather liked Goebbels.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
Until 1997 the Tories needed to win London as, along with the Midlands, it was the key swing region in the country, almost always voting for the party which won the general election.
Now however London is the safest Labour region in the UK, as 2019 showed even less of a prospect for the Tories than the North of England and Wales, so the Tories do not need to win London to win a general election outside a few seats mostly in the suburbs.
Indeed despite a UK wide majority of 80 the Tories now only hold 3 seats in the whole of inner London, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and 2/3 of those are marginal seats
That’s a slippery slope. Imagine if the SNP had taken a similar attitude to the impenetrable Labour fortresses of the Central Belt during the 1990s and 2000s. We would have failed to slowly but steadily build up our bases in dozens of Labour seats with immense majorities. Those tough, thankless decades of hard slog and preparation made the eventual breakthrough possible. It did not happen overnight.
Sounds to me like the Tories have simply given up on London. Unwise.
That is a slightly different matter, the SNP needed to win most of the Central Belt to get a majority in Scotland. Hence Scotland shifted from a Labour to SNP majority from 2007 to 2015 as the SNP started to win Labour seats in the Central Belt.
As 2019 showed the Tories do not need to win most of London to get a UK wide majority
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
One of the things that used to sadden me when commuting through Liverpool Street was the misuse of the Kinderstransport memorial to hold drinks cartons and other rubbish, though if you do not know what the memorial is and have not read the plaque to find out, it is more likely to be thoughtlessness rather than political comment.
Yes, we need to keep a sense of proportion. The real problem about memorials and statues is that hardly anyone knows what they're about or bothers to read the fading plaques that (perhaps) explain. I don't support defacing them (or peeing on them), nor do I think that someone who does so should serve a sentence greater than what is usually imposed for manslaughter. My Marxist streak thinks that we are allowing a systemic issue (do we have institutional and societal racism?) to be diverted into a symbolic issue (should statues be defaced?) and it's playing into the hands of people who like the status quo to let that happen.
Similarly, in the USA, although the latest police killing is another example of the excessive use of lethal force, it's a less clear case than Floyd since the guy was pointing a weapon and it was a decision of the moment rather than four minutes of strangulation.
I think there's a genuine problem for black people in Britain and the US which has been played down for too long, and the disorders have raised attention. We now need to focus on what can be done to improve it, rather than mess around with statues.
It is why the police shouldn't have allowed the mob to pull down the statue in Bristol in the first place. The original community decision to put a plaque explaining this guys dark history is was what should have happened. The result is the statue isn't being celebrated, it is educating. And that should be the solution for most of these problematic statues.
But now we have allowed the mob to do something and people are copying this lead.
It is about time for the government to do something proactive rather than keep condemning streetfights when they occur. Those who disagree should take a look at this thread header on what is by far the most important open internet forum used by British soldiers. Entitled "How do we get our country back?", it says exactly what you might imagine, given that title. The author foams and shouts that governments have become ever more left wing, that the white majority has long been ignored in the interests of aliens and immigrants and socialists and perverts who would probably prefer him to cut his c*ck off, and so on, and sweetly suggests that things in Britain are now as they were in Germany in the 1920s and if nothing is done then there will be the same result. Never mind which political party it was in 1920s Germany that was saying more or less exactly, mutatis mutandis, what he is saying now. Of course he knows damned well what he is saying.
Here's what the government should announce:
* all positive or neutral commemoration of slaveowners or those who licensed slavers will be ended, to include the removal of statues to Charles I, Charles II, James II, and Cromwell;
* a memorial to slaves and victims of the British empire will be erected in a very central position in London, e.g. close to the Palace of Westminster or perhaps adjacent to the Cenotaph in Whitehall;
* legislation will be introduced with heavy penalties for damaging war memorials or other memorials to the dead, brutalised, or enslaved; and this legislation will be strictly enforced.
Of course there will be grey areas, but sort it.
If Cambridge University can face up to slavery, then the British government ought to be able to.
Last point: it bothers me that some talk about the "desecration" of a statue of Winston Churchill. Such a statue is not a grave and cannot be "desecrated" because it is not sacred, except for loonies who think Churchill was divine or a saint, and who believe 10 strokes of the birch would be suitable for those who stick postage stamps on envelopes with the queen's head upside down. It is not sacred even in the sense that war memorials to the fallen are, or all graves are, as places where people really do stop and think for a short while to remember the dead in solemn (and not triumphalist) fashion.
Your third point is reasonable and already partially implemented.
Your second point is debatable - for me mostly on the aesthetic grounds that most modern monuments are pig-ugly - but not unreasonable.
Your first point is utterly insane. Taking down the monuments of historic English kings and leaders would probably send that army chap you're so worried about completely round the bend.
And if you don't understand that Churchill's statue is 'sacred' metaphorically, not literally, then there's no helping you.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Simples? Really? What about him not having any interest whatsoever in doing so?
I'm no fan of Putin, but I don't think he is sitting there weighing up the odds on which countries to invade.
I suspect the only ones that comes to mind are ones where there is an historic relationship.
British/English exceptionalism is psychologically incapable of accepting that the UK just isn't really worth invading. Getting rid of Trident would be an admission of irrelevance too far.
We are still a top 10 global economy and as a Scot you should know we have lots of oil too.
Of course we are worth invading by the leader of a poorer country with a stronger military like Putin
I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age.
He didn't exactly do it on his own.
True, but there's only so far one can plausibly play down Churchill's role. Britain would probably have capitulated without him, and it is unlikely that this would've made the world a better place in the long run...
IF, and it's big if on purpose, the films and so on are correct Lord Halifax was the alternative choice as PM and he was for a 'negotiated peace' with Hitler. Who...... allegedly and for a while at any rate ...... wasn't that keen on invading, although the force was being readied. Whether Halifax's 'negotiated peace' would have worked we'll never know. Hitler would still have attacked Russia.
Well, the ‘films’ are correct and Halifax was the alternative. There are about three accounts of what happened, but there was simply no third figure of comparable stature at the time. The most plausible account states that Halifax himself felt it would be impossible to lead a government from the Lords.
Interestingly Halifax himself wasn’t considered an arch appeaser. He isn’t mentioned in Guilty Men, for example. He was the key driver of the guarantee to Poland. He also became Churchill’s deputy for a brief time after Chamberlain’s death. There is a suggestion that he wanted to make peace not because he was sympathetic to Hitler, whom he knew well and despised utterly* but because he believed Britain had no choice and that the war was over. In this he proved, fortunately, to be wrong, but it wasn’t a ridiculous position at the time.
*Oddly though - and it says much about him and not in a good way - he rather liked Goebbels.
He also went hunting with Goering!
Yes. I’ve sometimes wondered if it was Hitler’s vegetarianism that put Halifax off him.
That said, Goering was famous for his ability to exude charm and bonhomie when he made the effort. Airey Neave also rather liked him.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
He had a bladder full of lager and he thought he could piss wherever he liked. There is no way he did it deliberately by the memorial to PC Palmer, but he certainly did it openly in the street and did not give it a second thought. It's a minor infraction, but it is perfect in its symbolism. He was there to protect traditional British values.
Presumably rather a lot of people have been urinating in the streets, as there aren't any public toilets open.
Back in the 50's a common Sunday evening sight on the road from Southend to London was a coach parked in a lay-by and a line of men urinating in the hedge.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
One of the things that used to sadden me when commuting through Liverpool Street was the misuse of the Kinderstransport memorial to hold drinks cartons and other rubbish, though if you do not know what the memorial is and have not read the plaque to find out, it is more likely to be thoughtlessness rather than political comment.
Yes, we need to keep a sense of proportion. The real problem about memorials and statues is that hardly anyone knows what they're about or bothers to read the fading plaques that (perhaps) explain. I don't support defacing them (or peeing on them), nor do I think that someone who does so should serve a sentence greater than what is usually imposed for manslaughter. My Marxist streak thinks that we are allowing a systemic issue (do we have institutional and societal racism?) to be diverted into a symbolic issue (should statues be defaced?) and it's playing into the hands of people who like the status quo to let that happen.
Similarly, in the USA, although the latest police killing is another example of the excessive use of lethal force, it's a less clear case than Floyd since the guy was pointing a weapon and it was a decision of the moment rather than four minutes of strangulation.
I think there's a genuine problem for black people in Britain and the US which has been played down for too long, and the disorders have raised attention. We now need to focus on what can be done to improve it, rather than mess around with statues.
It is why the police shouldn't have allowed the mob to pull down the statue in Bristol in the first place. The original community decision to put a plaque explaining this guys dark history is was what should have happened. The result is the statue isn't being celebrated, it is educating. And that should be the solution for most of these problematic statues.
But now we have allowed the mob to do something and people are copying this lead.
It is about time for the government to do something proactive rather than keep condemning streetfights when they occur. Those who disagree should take a look at this thread header on what is by far the most important open internet forum used by British soldiers. Entitled "How do we get our country back?", it says exactly what you might imagine, given that title. The author foams and shouts that governments have become ever more left wing, that the white majority has long been ignored in the interests of aliens and immigrants and socialists and perverts who would probably prefer him to cut his c*ck off, and so on, and sweetly suggests that things in Britain are now as they were in Germany in the 1920s and if nothing is done then there will be the same result. Never mind which political party it was in 1920s Germany that was saying more or less exactly, mutatis mutandis, what he is saying now. Of course he knows damned well what he is saying.
Here's what the government should announce:
* all positive or neutral commemoration of slaveowners or those who licensed slavers will be ended, to include the removal of statues to Charles I, Charles II, James II, and Cromwell;
* a memorial to slaves and victims of the British empire will be erected in a very central position in London, e.g. close to the Palace of Westminster or perhaps adjacent to the Cenotaph in Whitehall;
* legislation will be introduced with heavy penalties for damaging war memorials or other memorials to the dead, brutalised, or enslaved; and this legislation will be strictly enforced.
Of course there will be grey areas, but sort it.
If Cambridge University can face up to slavery, then the British government ought to be able to.
Last point: it bothers me that some talk about the "desecration" of a statue of Winston Churchill. Such a statue is not a grave and cannot be "desecrated" because it is not sacred, except for loonies who think Churchill was divine or a saint, and who believe 10 strokes of the birch would be suitable for those who stick postage stamps on envelopes with the queen's head upside down. It is not sacred even in the sense that war memorials to the fallen are, or all graves are, as places where people really do stop and think for a short while to remember the dead in solemn (and not triumphalist) fashion.
Utter rubbish, Charles Ist, Charles, IInd, James II and Cromwell's contributions to history were extensive and any connection to slavery of them was minor. They must and will stay. Churchill, our greatest leader, must and will stay.
The only statues to be moved to museums are those like Colston whose fame and wealth came mainly through the slave trade
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
If there is one word to describe Khan as a politician is uninspiring. He never royally f##ks up / allows the blame to stick to him, but doesn't get stuff done. What he is good at is playing to the gallery and playing the political game, front and centre to give Trump both barrels vs becomes invisible when coronavirus hits the fan.
He spent the first half of March asking to attend Cobra meetings and being denied access to the scientific experts.
He was self aggrandising. He’s a mayor. If he attends, why shouldn’t Andy Burnham?
Cobra was attended by the first ministers of the various nations or their representatives. That’s is the right level.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
One of the things that used to sadden me when commuting through Liverpool Street was the misuse of the Kinderstransport memorial to hold drinks cartons and other rubbish, though if you do not know what the memorial is and have not read the plaque to find out, it is more likely to be thoughtlessness rather than political comment.
Yes, we need to keep a sense of proportion. The real problem about memorials and statues is that hardly anyone knows what they're about or bothers to read the fading plaques that (perhaps) explain. I don't support defacing them (or peeing on them), nor do I think that someone who does so should serve a sentence greater than what is usually imposed for manslaughter. My Marxist streak thinks that we are allowing a systemic issue (do we have institutional and societal racism?) to be diverted into a symbolic issue (should statues be defaced?) and it's playing into the hands of people who like the status quo to let that happen.
Similarly, in the USA, although the latest police killing is another example of the excessive use of lethal force, it's a less clear case than Floyd since the guy was pointing a weapon and it was a decision of the moment rather than four minutes of strangulation.
I think there's a genuine problem for black people in Britain and the US which has been played down for too long, and the disorders have raised attention. We now need to focus on what can be done to improve it, rather than mess around with statues.
It is why the police shouldn't have allowed the mob to pull down the statue in Bristol in the first place. The original community decision to put a plaque explaining this guys dark history is was what should have happened. The result is the statue isn't being celebrated, it is educating. And that should be the solution for most of these problematic statues.
But now we have allowed the mob to do something and people are copying this lead.
It is about time for the government to do something proactive rather than keep condemning streetfights when they occur. Those who disagree should take a look at this thread header on what is by far the most important open internet forum used by British soldiers. Entitled "How do we get our country back?", it says exactly what you might imagine, given that title. The author foams and shouts that governments have become ever more left wing, that the white majority has long been ignored in the interests of aliens and immigrants and socialists and perverts who would probably prefer him to cut his c*ck off, and so on, and sweetly suggests that things in Britain are now as they were in Germany in the 1920s and if nothing is done then there will be the same result. Never mind which political party it was in 1920s Germany that was saying more or less exactly, mutatis mutandis, what he is saying now. Of course he knows damned well what he is saying.
Here's what the government should announce:
* all positive or neutral commemoration of slaveowners or those who licensed slavers will be ended, to include the removal of statues to Charles I, Charles II, James II, and Cromwell;
* a memorial to slaves and victims of the British empire will be erected in a very central position in London, e.g. close to the Palace of Westminster or perhaps adjacent to the Cenotaph in Whitehall;
* legislation will be introduced with heavy penalties for damaging war memorials or other memorials to the dead, brutalised, or enslaved; and this legislation will be strictly enforced.
Of course there will be grey areas, but sort it.
If Cambridge University can face up to slavery, then the British government ought to be able to.
Last point: it bothers me that some talk about the "desecration" of a statue of Winston Churchill. Such a statue is not a grave and cannot be "desecrated" because it is not sacred, except for loonies who think Churchill was divine or a saint, and who believe 10 strokes of the birch would be suitable for those who stick postage stamps on envelopes with the queen's head upside down. It is not sacred even in the sense that war memorials to the fallen are, or all graves are, as places where people really do stop and think for a short while to remember the dead in solemn (and not triumphalist) fashion.
Nope I would not support any Government proposing the removal of statues of either the Stuart Kings or Cromwell. If that was attempted I would be right out there with the protestors to stop it. As, I would suspect, many other formerly non protest types.
Plus there are already heavy penalties for defacing or damaging war memorials. 10 years in jail is the current guidance for the judiciary.
Basically we ned to concentrate on making sure our current society does not support slavery rather than crying about the past. It is done.
I find it ironic that the same people who quite rightly say we cannot blame the people of Germany today for what their grandfathers did are very ready to demand apologies from the British today for what their distant ancestors did.
As i predicted yesterday, pissy man has now become the media face of the protests.
I thought we couldn't see his face.
Perhaps we should say he's become the most prominent arse of the protests?
I think by tomorrow we will see his face all over the front pages and by Tuesday if he has a job, be out of it.
The 28-year-old was arrested on suspicion of outraging public decency and is currently in custody in Essex after presenting himself at a police station.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
I'm going to make myself unpopular.
If that is all he did I do not view it as an offence of enormous seriousness in the grand scheme of things.
And if it leads to calls for "lock up and throw away in the key!" - just based on that image and nothing else - I will not be joining in.
I very much doubt thats an unpopular view, prison should not be for people urinating in the street.
Wasn’t he urinating to the side anyway? My guess is he through the it was a convenient stone and either didn’t see or didn’t realise what the memorial was
If he’s walked in from the right of the picture, he probably wouldn’t have even seen it. It’s an image that looks very different from the angle taken, compared to the view the subject has. He was ‘just’ going for a pee - as opposed to deliberately doing so over a monument, as is trying to be suggested.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
On a scale of zero to Johnson-refusing-to-pay-for-an-abortion how likely do you think it will be that Russia will think invading and occupying the UK is worth the cost over the 30 year life of the Dreadnought boats?
When it comes to nuclear defence, I quite like the probability of danger to be at you-obeying-the-speed-limit levels.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Should the time arrive when Putin decides to invade Western Europe, our nuclear strike capability won't be what puts him off. It is all down to what Uncle Sam does next, and if Putin has a friendly face in the Whitehouse, happy to undermine Nato, and quite content for Putin to fill his boots, I suspect should the desire take him, the ground forces move in.
If Boris struggles with making decisions about more mundane issues like when to time a lockdown, he will be overwhelmed by all the letters he has to write to himself if he is called to command a nuclear strike.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
He had a bladder full of lager and he thought he could piss wherever he liked. There is no way he did it deliberately by the memorial to PC Palmer, but he certainly did it openly in the street and did not give it a second thought. It's a minor infraction, but it is perfect in its symbolism. He was there to protect traditional British values.
Presumably rather a lot of people have been urinating in the streets, as there aren't any public toilets open.
Back in the 50's a common Sunday evening sight on the road from Southend to London was a coach parked in a lay-by and a line of men urinating in the hedge.
There is a line in the King James Bible - 1 Kings 14, to be exact - that describes the offences of the Kings of Israel as being comparable to ‘them that pisseth against a wall.’
It makes no sense until you realise it was an idiomatic phrase for lower class people.
As i predicted yesterday, pissy man has now become the media face of the protests.
I thought we couldn't see his face.
Perhaps we should say he's become the most prominent arse of the protests?
I think by tomorrow we will see his face all over the front pages and by Tuesday if he has a job, be out of it.
The 28-year-old was arrested on suspicion of outraging public decency and is currently in custody in Essex after presenting himself at a police station.
He presented himself there as well as at the memorial?
I'm very upset (and angry) about what's happening to Churchill. If it wasn't for him the world would likely have slipped into a new dark age.
He didn't exactly do it on his own.
It was Attlees refusal to support the Tories preferred candidate Halifax that led to Churchill being PM. Defeatism was more a Tory phenomenon than a widespread one.
I have always understood that Labour was willing to serve under Halifax - indeed some preferred him to Churchill. Attlee refused to serve under Chamberlain though.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Should the time arrive when Putin decides to invade Western Europe, our nuclear strike capability won't be what puts him off. It is all down to what Uncle Sam does next, and if Putin has a friendly face in the Whitehouse, happy to undermine Nato, and quite content for Putin to fill his boots, I suspect should the desire take him, the ground forces move in.
If Boris struggles with making decisions about more mundane issues like when to time a lockdown, he will be overwhelmed by all the letters he has to write to himself if he is called to command a nuclear strike.
Boris wrote what to do in the event of a nuclear strike on the UK as soon as he entered No 10 when he wrote the letter of last restort to all Trident commanders
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
Until 1997 the Tories needed to win London as, along with the Midlands, it was the key swing region in the country, almost always voting for the party which won the general election.
Now however London is the safest Labour region in the UK, as 2019 showed even less of a prospect for the Tories than the North of England and Wales, so the Tories do not need to win London to win a general election outside some marginal seats in the suburbs.
Indeed the Tories now only hold 3 seats in the whole of inner London, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and 2/3 of those are marginal seats
Yep, the Tories have given up on London as a place in which they can win.
Bit like Labour and Scotland.
You say that..
'Scotland vital to Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, says Ian Murray'
Of course ruling out Indy ref II and grubbing about with the SCons for the unalloyed Unionist vote could be construed as giving up, but never let it be said that SLab won't give every losing strategy a damned good try, several tries in fact.
😃
My personal favourite is federalism.
I’ve lost count of the number of times Scottish Labour have launched UK federalism as their shiny new strategy to finally squish Scottish patriots.
At a conservative estimate, at least 15 times during the last 30 years.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Simples? Really? What about him not having any interest whatsoever in doing so?
I'm no fan of Putin, but I don't think he is sitting there weighing up the odds on which countries to invade.
I suspect the only ones that comes to mind are ones where there is an historic relationship.
British/English exceptionalism is psychologically incapable of accepting that the UK just isn't really worth invading. Getting rid of Trident would be an admission of irrelevance too far.
We are still a top 10 global economy and as a Scot you should know we have lots of oil too.
Of course we are worth invading by the leader of a poorer country with a stronger military like Putin
I assume this is tongue in cheek HYUFD. You don't really think Putin is sitting there with a box of pins and a map thinking who it is worth invading and who he can get away with invading do you?
The UK is not an ex Soviet Union or satellite state. Luxembourg looks a bit tasty shall we have a go at them?
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Should the time arrive when Putin decides to invade Western Europe, our nuclear strike capability won't be what puts him off. It is all down to what Uncle Sam does next, and if Putin has a friendly face in the Whitehouse, happy to undermine Nato, and quite content for Putin to fill his boots, I suspect should the desire take him, the ground forces move in.
If Boris struggles with making decisions about more mundane issues like when to time a lockdown, he will be overwhelmed by all the letters he has to write to himself if he is called to command a nuclear strike.
Boris wrote what to do in the event of a nuclear strike on the UK as soon as he entered No 10 when he wrote the letter of last restort to all Trident commanders
Has he written 2 letters to them, and does either of them involve hiding in a fridge?
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Should the time arrive when Putin decides to invade Western Europe, our nuclear strike capability won't be what puts him off. It is all down to what Uncle Sam does next, and if Putin has a friendly face in the Whitehouse, happy to undermine Nato, and quite content for Putin to fill his boots, I suspect should the desire take him, the ground forces move in.
If Boris struggles with making decisions about more mundane issues like when to time a lockdown, he will be overwhelmed by all the letters he has to write to himself if he is called to command a nuclear strike.
On the contrary - his record of writing two opposing letters on critical issues will be sure to keep the enemy guessing.
"Does my letter say 'Ah, just let it go!' or 'Turn everything west of the Urals into glass'? The real question, Vladimir, is 'Do you feel lucky?' Well, do ya, панк?"
As for what would actually happen in that scenario, we can't control the US, but 200 British warheads is more than enough to ruin anyone's day...
I don't think it's likely that the Tories win London no matter the candidate. This being the case, Sean Bailey should get full support, the Tories should fight tooth and nail for every vote, and just use it as a learning exercise.
Bailey doesn't have a consistent narrative. He attacks Khan's London opportunistically.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Should the time arrive when Putin decides to invade Western Europe, our nuclear strike capability won't be what puts him off. It is all down to what Uncle Sam does next, and if Putin has a friendly face in the Whitehouse, happy to undermine Nato, and quite content for Putin to fill his boots, I suspect should the desire take him, the ground forces move in.
If Boris struggles with making decisions about more mundane issues like when to time a lockdown, he will be overwhelmed by all the letters he has to write to himself if he is called to command a nuclear strike.
Boris wrote what to do in the event of a nuclear strike on the UK as soon as he entered No 10 when he wrote the letter of last restort to all Trident commanders
All PMs do. Last resort can be taken quite literally in this case. If he is fully cogent it is his decision to make the call as Russian ground forces sweep towards Calais..
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Finlands in the way.
Why doesn't Putin invade Finland next weekend?
Because NATO would kick his arse back to Moscow?
NATO sans the United States could not kick Russia's arse anywhere. Our army is down to the SAS and some lorries in Catterick after decades of Tory (not Labour!) cuts and more importantly, Russia has seriously beefed up its own capabilities after its humiliation over Yugoslavia (and possibly half an eye on China's build-up).
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Should the time arrive when Putin decides to invade Western Europe, our nuclear strike capability won't be what puts him off. It is all down to what Uncle Sam does next, and if Putin has a friendly face in the Whitehouse, happy to undermine Nato, and quite content for Putin to fill his boots, I suspect should the desire take him, the ground forces move in.
If Boris struggles with making decisions about more mundane issues like when to time a lockdown, he will be overwhelmed by all the letters he has to write to himself if he is called to command a nuclear strike.
Boris wrote what to do in the event of a nuclear strike on the UK as soon as he entered No 10 when he wrote the letter of last restort to all Trident commanders
Has he written 2 letters to them, and does either of them involve hiding in a fridge?
Fridges are a critical survival tool in any nuclear exchange:
Your point makes no sense. If a million people turned up on a march in London and 0.1% were violent it would be open warfare on the streets and there is no way it would be described as 'largely peaceful'. There was violence at both demos and both should be condemned equally. Everything else is just seeking to justify your own bias.
I agree, but there is an objective problem with the way the media (and indeed popular interest) work: if you want attention, you need to do something illegal - pull down a statue, start a fight, start a fire, etc. There was a large, completely silent BLM march this week in Brighton, which got almost zero publicity. So protestors draw the sadly correct conclusion that if they behave themselves they will be ignored.
I think it would be helpful if fringe groups who cause trouble got minimal attention apart from the police dealing with them. Likewise terrorists, for that matter. Publicity for evil attention-seekers simply rewards them. Obviously there comes a point that so much havoc is caused that one can't ignore it. But a few thousand people shouting a lot and throwing beer cans? We don't need to know.
There is clearly a problem with the media today exactly as you describe and one that needs to be addressed and resolved. It is not a left/right or state/libertarian issue. It is a straight forward issue of chasing ratings through sensationalism. It is worst in the television media but is present in all types of journalism.
There is a good example causing an argument in Belgium at the moment where an RTBF TV crew prearranged with some youths to turn up to film them attacking a statue of Leopold II. Now if ever a statue needed to be removed it is that of Leopold II but TV crews should not be pre arranging meetings to film criminal activity. It comes dangerously close to incitement.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
Until 1997 the Tories needed to win London as, along with the Midlands, it was the key swing region in the country, almost always voting for the party which won the general election.
Now however London is the safest Labour region in the UK, as 2019 showed even less of a prospect for the Tories than the North of England and Wales, so the Tories do not need to win London to win a general election outside some marginal seats in the suburbs.
Indeed the Tories now only hold 3 seats in the whole of inner London, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and 2/3 of those are marginal seats
Yep, the Tories have given up on London as a place in which they can win.
Bit like Labour and Scotland.
You say that..
'Scotland vital to Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, says Ian Murray'
Of course ruling out Indy ref II and grubbing about with the SCons for the unalloyed Unionist vote could be construed as giving up, but never let it be said that SLab won't give every losing strategy a damned good try, several tries in fact.
😃
My personal favourite is federalism.
I’ve lost count of the number of times Scottish Labour have launched UK federalism as their shiny new strategy to finally squish Scottish patriots.
At a conservative estimate, at least 15 times during the last 30 years.
SLab's biggest continuing mistake is the non-realisation that Scots heads stopped zipping up the back sometime in the late 80s.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
So who are the potential 'London Bill Gates' ?
As I remember Cameron initially wanted Greg Dyke to be the anti-Ken candidate in 2008.
I don't know but my mental image is of a working class cockney made good, in their 40s, wealth accrued from a business that genuinely adds value, such as high end manufacturing or tech-with-a-purpose, as opposed to froth like - well, I'm sure you know what I mean by that.
Will need a record of speaking up on issues such as racism and sexism and environmental damage - and preferably being anti those things rather than for them - but not in a way that has really got up people's noses in places like Bromley.
The USP, and this is what will allow the Cons to choose this person, will be a belief in "tough love", rather than subsidy and feather bedding, and in "looking beyond race and gender" rather than wallowing in victimhood.
When I picture the individual, I see Ray Winstone for some reason, but that is just a superficial thing that means nothing. Because of course it could be a woman.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
On a scale of zero to Johnson-refusing-to-pay-for-an-abortion how likely do you think it will be that Russia will think invading and occupying the UK is worth the cost over the 30 year life of the Dreadnought boats?
That’s the sort of argument that leads to the CDC’s pandemic monitoring unit being scrapped to save money
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
That is what the Tories did with West Midlands mayor, Andy Street was John Lewis big bod...but he was up against PB favourite fortune teller, Sion Simon, so not exactly Premier League political battle.
Good call, a Londoner version of Andy Street. Is Charlie Mullins from Pimlico Plumbers still a Tory member?
No...he hates them now, because of Brexit. I believe he is Lib Dem these days.
He was one of the people funding Mr Stop Brexit to shout all day over the tv reporters.
Oh, damn. Who else have we got, need to find a successful businessman known favourably to most of London?
The problem is that they also need to be a fervent Brexiteer, and that is not compatible with being seen favourably by most of London.
A pro EU Tory candidate may do better (Dominic Grieve?) but would be worse than a Labour Mayor to Tory Eyes...
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Should the time arrive when Putin decides to invade Western Europe, our nuclear strike capability won't be what puts him off. It is all down to what Uncle Sam does next, and if Putin has a friendly face in the Whitehouse, happy to undermine Nato, and quite content for Putin to fill his boots, I suspect should the desire take him, the ground forces move in.
If Boris struggles with making decisions about more mundane issues like when to time a lockdown, he will be overwhelmed by all the letters he has to write to himself if he is called to command a nuclear strike.
On the contrary - his record of writing two opposing letters on critical issues will be sure to keep the enemy guessing.
"Does my letter say 'Ah, just let it go!' or 'Turn everything west of the Urals into glass'? The real question, Vladimir, is 'Do you feel lucky?' Well, do ya, панк?"
As for what would actually happen in that scenario, we can't control the US, but 200 British warheads is more than enough to ruin anyone's day...
I am not sure you understand the implications of Johnson having to ask Putin 'if he feels lucky'. It won't just be just the West of the Urals that will look like a moonscape.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
He had a bladder full of lager and he thought he could piss wherever he liked. There is no way he did it deliberately by the memorial to PC Palmer, but he certainly did it openly in the street and did not give it a second thought. It's a minor infraction, but it is perfect in its symbolism. He was there to protect traditional British values.
Presumably rather a lot of people have been urinating in the streets, as there aren't any public toilets open.
Back in the 50's a common Sunday evening sight on the road from Southend to London was a coach parked in a lay-by and a line of men urinating in the hedge.
There is a line in the King James Bible - 1 Kings 14, to be exact - that describes the offences of the Kings of Israel as being comparable to ‘them that pisseth against a wall.’
It makes no sense until you realise it was an idiomatic phrase for lower class people.
I see that the proposed KJV solution involves "cutting off".
I don't think it's likely that the Tories win London no matter the candidate. This being the case, Sean Bailey should get full support, the Tories should fight tooth and nail for every vote, and just use it as a learning exercise.
Shaun Bailey is not a basket case just yet. There have been five London Mayoral elections. Labour won two of them. Just two. Not even half. CCHQ needs to grow a pair and stop this endless whinging that "the system" is biased against them in Scotland, Wales, London, the north.
Indeed. If the Tories presented an attractive platform, and were fronted by likeable, competent, normal people, they would perform well electorally among Londoners, Scots, Welsh and northern English.
“The system” is heavily in their favour, so their lack of success must be down to their ugly agenda, their repulsive character, their gross and increasingly obvious incompetence, and the fact that most of their high profile figures are complete weirdos.
Winning elections is not rocket science. You just need to be reasonably ok, not the best on the planet. That’s why all Johnson’s guff about his “world-beating” policies backfires. It is so self-evidently untrue. Johnson is not the best person in the building, let alone the planet.
Just wait till the Brexit post cognitive dissonance kicks in. Then we’ll see how “the system” affects the Tory vote in the English Midlands and South.
That's a fair point about hyperbole.
Do people really want 'world beating' ? Its usually hard work and very costly.
Being good enough is usually good enough.
I think the hyperbole can trace its origins to the English public school system and/or to Oxbridge, where most senior Tories seem to have been educated. (And the ones who weren’t educated there would desperately have loved to, and thus ape their “betters”.)
There is an unattractive culture of bragging which permeates English culture. I don’t think they realise they’re doing it, but it is a defining national characteristic for folk with a bit of perspective from furth of England’s green and pleasant land.
As i predicted yesterday, pissy man has now become the media face of the protests.
I thought we couldn't see his face.
Perhaps we should say he's become the most prominent arse of the protests?
I think by tomorrow we will see his face all over the front pages and by Tuesday if he has a job, be out of it.
The 28-year-old was arrested on suspicion of outraging public decency and is currently in custody in Essex after presenting himself at a police station.
Probably needs to be in custody for his own protection.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
I'm going to make myself unpopular.
If that is all he did I do not view it as an offence of enormous seriousness in the grand scheme of things.
And if it leads to calls for "lock up and throw away in the key!" - just based on that image and nothing else - I will not be joining in.
I very much doubt thats an unpopular view, prison should not be for people urinating in the street.
Wasn’t he urinating to the side anyway? My guess is he through the it was a convenient stone and either didn’t see or didn’t realise what the memorial was
If he’s walked in from the right of the picture, he probably wouldn’t have even seen it. It’s an image that looks very different from the angle taken, compared to the view the subject has. He was ‘just’ going for a pee - as opposed to deliberately doing so over a monument, as is trying to be suggested.
Boris wrote what to do in the event of a nuclear strike on the UK as soon as he entered No 10 when he wrote the letter of last restort to all Trident commanders
Dear Submarine Chaps,
Hullo! I think you should, umm, err launch our great, brilliant, WORLD BEATING err,arr, PYROTECHNICS at Stuart Collier's house. I, err, think that's what, umm, Darry said.
It was Britain’s misfortune for the emergency to occur under a prime minister notably ill-suited to handling a crisis of this nature and magnitude. Time and again, I have heard accounts from inside government of warnings given and action exhorted only for the machinery never to properly click into gear for want of decisive leadership.
One critique, often to be heard now even from erstwhile admirers, is that his outfit at Number 10 is not so much a government as a campaign. More accomplished at generating propaganda than making policy..
His inadequacies would not have mattered so much were the prime minister surrounded by capable ministers. His weaknesses have been magnified because he deliberately appointed a cabinet conspicuously light on talent – “the nodding dogs”, as one senior Tory labels them.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Should the time arrive when Putin decides to invade Western Europe, our nuclear strike capability won't be what puts him off. It is all down to what Uncle Sam does next, and if Putin has a friendly face in the Whitehouse, happy to undermine Nato, and quite content for Putin to fill his boots, I suspect should the desire take him, the ground forces move in.
If Boris struggles with making decisions about more mundane issues like when to time a lockdown, he will be overwhelmed by all the letters he has to write to himself if he is called to command a nuclear strike.
On the contrary - his record of writing two opposing letters on critical issues will be sure to keep the enemy guessing.
"Does my letter say 'Ah, just let it go!' or 'Turn everything west of the Urals into glass'? The real question, Vladimir, is 'Do you feel lucky?' Well, do ya, панк?"
As for what would actually happen in that scenario, we can't control the US, but 200 British warheads is more than enough to ruin anyone's day...
I am not sure you understand the implications of Johnson having to ask Putin 'if he feels lucky'. It won't just be just the West of the Urals that will look like a moonscape.
Yes, that's the whole point of the word 'mutually' in 'mutually-assured destruction'. Neither side wants to end up living on the moon as a fine layer of ash, so they never put themselves in a situation that would produce that conclusion.
How will GE 2024 turn out if a new UKIP/Brexit Party or similar takes 5% of the vote? Unevenly spread, that will cause total havoc for the Tories in many seats.
How will GE 2024 turn out if a new UKIP/Brexit Party or similar takes 5% of the vote? Unevenly spread, that will cause total havoc for the Tories in many seats.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Simples? Really? What about him not having any interest whatsoever in doing so?
I'm no fan of Putin, but I don't think he is sitting there weighing up the odds on which countries to invade.
I suspect the only ones that comes to mind are ones where there is an historic relationship.
British/English exceptionalism is psychologically incapable of accepting that the UK just isn't really worth invading. Getting rid of Trident would be an admission of irrelevance too far.
We are still a top 10 global economy and as a Scot you should know we have lots of oil too.
Of course we are worth invading by the leader of a poorer country with a stronger military like Putin
I assume this is tongue in cheek HYUFD. You don't really think Putin is sitting there with a box of pins and a map thinking who it is worth invading and who he can get away with invading do you?
The UK is not an ex Soviet Union or satellite state. Luxembourg looks a bit tasty shall we have a go at them?
Putin is essentially a dictator, if he could get away with it he would annexe most of western Europe to Russia
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
If there is one word to describe Khan as a politician is uninspiring. He never royally f##ks up / allows the blame to stick to him, but doesn't get stuff done. What he is good at is playing to the gallery and playing the political game, front and centre to give Trump both barrels vs becomes invisible when coronavirus hits the fan.
He spent the first half of March asking to attend Cobra meetings and being denied access to the scientific experts.
He was self aggrandising. He’s a mayor. If he attends, why shouldn’t Andy Burnham?
Cobra was attended by the first ministers of the various nations or their representatives. That’s is the right level.
It cant be both things. He cant be restricted from the scientific advice and then also blamed for not being more active. Either one may or not be true, or neither, but not both.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Should the time arrive when Putin decides to invade Western Europe, our nuclear strike capability won't be what puts him off. It is all down to what Uncle Sam does next, and if Putin has a friendly face in the Whitehouse, happy to undermine Nato, and quite content for Putin to fill his boots, I suspect should the desire take him, the ground forces move in.
If Boris struggles with making decisions about more mundane issues like when to time a lockdown, he will be overwhelmed by all the letters he has to write to himself if he is called to command a nuclear strike.
On the contrary - his record of writing two opposing letters on critical issues will be sure to keep the enemy guessing.
"Does my letter say 'Ah, just let it go!' or 'Turn everything west of the Urals into glass'? The real question, Vladimir, is 'Do you feel lucky?' Well, do ya, панк?"
As for what would actually happen in that scenario, we can't control the US, but 200 British warheads is more than enough to ruin anyone's day...
I am not sure you understand the implications of Johnson having to ask Putin 'if he feels lucky'. It won't just be just the West of the Urals that will look like a moonscape.
Yes, that's the whole point of the word 'mutually' in 'mutually-assured destruction'. Neither side wants to end up living on the moon as a fine layer of ash, so they never put themselves in a situation that would produce that conclusion.
So as Russian ground forces pick off each European Country one by one, and President Trump, enjoying his second term, but otherwise occupied by a racially based civil war, does nothing about it. The ball is in Boris' court, does he launch a nuclear first strike?
How will GE 2024 turn out if a new UKIP/Brexit Party or similar takes 5% of the vote? Unevenly spread, that will cause total havoc for the Tories in many seats.
What better way to get the tories to do what you want? its worked before.
THis isn;t about Europe. Farage senses people are more appalled about the authorities' response to BLM than is being reported. They are very angry.
Cue a whole load of speeches in the Featherstones and the Newports about the tory betrayal of our traditions blah blah blah
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Should the time arrive when Putin decides to invade Western Europe, our nuclear strike capability won't be what puts him off. It is all down to what Uncle Sam does next, and if Putin has a friendly face in the Whitehouse, happy to undermine Nato, and quite content for Putin to fill his boots, I suspect should the desire take him, the ground forces move in.
If Boris struggles with making decisions about more mundane issues like when to time a lockdown, he will be overwhelmed by all the letters he has to write to himself if he is called to command a nuclear strike.
On the contrary - his record of writing two opposing letters on critical issues will be sure to keep the enemy guessing.
"Does my letter say 'Ah, just let it go!' or 'Turn everything west of the Urals into glass'? The real question, Vladimir, is 'Do you feel lucky?' Well, do ya, панк?"
As for what would actually happen in that scenario, we can't control the US, but 200 British warheads is more than enough to ruin anyone's day...
I am not sure you understand the implications of Johnson having to ask Putin 'if he feels lucky'. It won't just be just the West of the Urals that will look like a moonscape.
Yes, that's the whole point of the word 'mutually' in 'mutually-assured destruction'. Neither side wants to end up living on the moon as a fine layer of ash, so they never put themselves in a situation that would produce that conclusion.
So as Russian ground forces pick off each European Country one by one, and President Trump, enjoying his second term, but otherwise occupied by a racially based civil war, does nothing about it. The ball is in Boris' court, does he launch a nuclear first strike?
Looking at America today, there could be a racially based civil war whoever wins. In fact, its much more likely with a Biden win, in my view.
If Biden triumphs, out there in the sticks of white America, they will be circling the wagons. Or rather the 4x4s.
I wonder if Farage is going to repeat the the same non-transparent funding trick with TBP that he pulled off last time?
System working well, send more money.
It's not too late. You can still join "The Brexit Club" for £100/month.
Join our special elite founder members club for £10,000 and receive this lavishly tooled statuette of our greatest ever Briton (protective metal case optional).
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
So who are the potential 'London Bill Gates' ?
As I remember Cameron initially wanted Greg Dyke to be the anti-Ken candidate in 2008.
I don't know but my mental image is of a working class cockney made good, in their 40s, wealth accrued from a business that genuinely adds value, such as high end manufacturing or tech-with-a-purpose, as opposed to froth like - well, I'm sure you know what I mean by that.
Will need a record of speaking up on issues such as racism and sexism and environmental damage - and preferably being anti those things rather than for them - but not in a way that has really got up people's noses in places like Bromley.
The USP, and this is what will allow the Cons to choose this person, will be a belief in "tough love", rather than subsidy and feather bedding, and in "looking beyond race and gender" rather than wallowing in victimhood.
When I picture the individual, I see Ray Winstone for some reason, but that is just a superficial thing that means nothing. Because of course it could be a woman.
Agreed, that's the job specs.
But who are the possible applicants ?
I suspect that's why Alan Sugar is well thought of in some circles - he's the nearest the average person would think of as a British tech billionaire. That he dates back to the 1980s surely reveals something.
Apart from him there's the 'chain store entrepreneur' image the Conservatives like - echoes from the Thatcher era perhaps ?
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Simples? Really? What about him not having any interest whatsoever in doing so?
I'm no fan of Putin, but I don't think he is sitting there weighing up the odds on which countries to invade.
I suspect the only ones that comes to mind are ones where there is an historic relationship.
British/English exceptionalism is psychologically incapable of accepting that the UK just isn't really worth invading. Getting rid of Trident would be an admission of irrelevance too far.
We are still a top 10 global economy and as a Scot you should know we have lots of oil too.
Of course we are worth invading by the leader of a poorer country with a stronger military like Putin
I assume this is tongue in cheek HYUFD. You don't really think Putin is sitting there with a box of pins and a map thinking who it is worth invading and who he can get away with invading do you?
The UK is not an ex Soviet Union or satellite state. Luxembourg looks a bit tasty shall we have a go at them?
Putin is essentially a dictator, if he could get away with it he would annexe most of western Europe to Russia
No, Putin is merely an autocratic bully. He needs the West to be a threat for his own internal control purposes. He only invades countries where there is a pro Russian community, and enfeebled government.
There simply is, probably for the first time in our history, a credible conventional military threat to the United Kingdom. Counter insurgency, anti terrorism and expeditionary warfare as part of an alliance are all that our forces will fight in the foreseeable future.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
That is what the Tories did with West Midlands mayor, Andy Street was John Lewis big bod...but he was up against PB favourite fortune teller, Sion Simon, so not exactly Premier League political battle.
Good call, a Londoner version of Andy Street. Is Charlie Mullins from Pimlico Plumbers still a Tory member?
No...he hates them now, because of Brexit. I believe he is Lib Dem these days.
He was one of the people funding Mr Stop Brexit to shout all day over the tv reporters.
Oh, damn. Who else have we got, need to find a successful businessman known favourably to most of London?
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
Why doesn't Putin invade Sweden next weekend?
Because he's calculated it's not worth the cost. For now.
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
Simples? Really? What about him not having any interest whatsoever in doing so?
I'm no fan of Putin, but I don't think he is sitting there weighing up the odds on which countries to invade.
I suspect the only ones that comes to mind are ones where there is an historic relationship.
British/English exceptionalism is psychologically incapable of accepting that the UK just isn't really worth invading. Getting rid of Trident would be an admission of irrelevance too far.
We are still a top 10 global economy and as a Scot you should know we have lots of oil too.
Of course we are worth invading by the leader of a poorer country with a stronger military like Putin
I assume this is tongue in cheek HYUFD. You don't really think Putin is sitting there with a box of pins and a map thinking who it is worth invading and who he can get away with invading do you?
The UK is not an ex Soviet Union or satellite state. Luxembourg looks a bit tasty shall we have a go at them?
Putin is essentially a dictator, if he could get away with it he would annexe most of western Europe to Russia
What's in it for Russia? The Baltic states maybe. (Mind you, I could never work out why the Nazis attacked Western Europe either. To quote Ken Livingstone, I think Hitler might have gone a bit mad.)
Comments
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8418845/Winston-Churchills-picture-REMOVED-Googles-list-British-Prime-Ministers.html
But if a country has second-strike nuclear capability, then invading it will never be worth the cost.
Simples.
It (or at least it was until recent events) true that people got these stories so much in the media that they then thought they were nonsense (swine flu another) because it never happened, but the point is there is serious potential for devastation.
If bird flu was easily transmissible we would be in big trouble. Same at the time with HIV (imagine if you could have got it then from a sneeze). On the other hand swine flu was easily transmissible but turned out to be a wimp. Re BSE, they just didn't know and there were various scenarios.
Here's what the government should announce:
* all positive or neutral commemoration of slaveowners or those who licensed slavers will be ended, to include the removal of statues to Charles I, Charles II, James II, and Cromwell;
* a memorial to slaves and victims of the British empire will be erected in a very central position in London, e.g. close to the Palace of Westminster or perhaps adjacent to the Cenotaph in Whitehall;
* legislation will be introduced with heavy penalties for damaging war memorials or other memorials to the dead, brutalised, or enslaved; and this legislation will be strictly enforced.
Of course there will be grey areas, but sort it.
If Cambridge University can face up to slavery, then the British government ought to be able to.
Last point: it bothers me that some talk about the "desecration" of a statue of Winston Churchill. Such a statue is not a grave and cannot be "desecrated" because it is not sacred, except for loonies who think Churchill was divine or a saint, and who believe 10 strokes of the birch would be suitable for those who stick postage stamps on envelopes with the queen's head upside down. It is not sacred even in the sense that war memorials to the fallen are, or all graves are, as places where people really do stop and think for a short while to remember the dead in solemn (and not triumphalist) fashion.
The provision in its constitution that it should have good relations with its neighbours is a standing joke, like "subsidiarity" always was.
Do people really want 'world beating' ? Its usually hard work and very costly.
Being good enough is usually good enough.
Perhaps we should say he's become the most prominent arse of the protests?
I'm no fan of Putin, but I don't think he is sitting there weighing up the odds on which countries to invade.
I suspect the only ones that comes to mind are ones where there is an historic relationship.
Lots of good ideas, though going down the purchasing the DVD from Amazon route. Sometimes the simplest solutions really are the best and don't know why I didn't think of that. Sometimes don't see the wood for the trees.
It's the perfect thing you could give Sajid say to give him something do.
'Scotland vital to Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, says Ian Murray'
https://tinyurl.com/y9rx8a73
Of course ruling out Indy ref II and grubbing about with the SCons for the unalloyed Unionist vote could be construed as giving up, but never let it be said that SLab won't give every losing strategy a damned good try, several tries in fact.
The devil finds work for idle hands.
Sounds to me like the Tories have simply given up on London. Unwise.
As 2019 showed the Tories do not need to win most of London to get a UK wide majority
Your third point is reasonable and already partially implemented.
Your second point is debatable - for me mostly on the aesthetic grounds that most modern monuments are pig-ugly - but not unreasonable.
Your first point is utterly insane. Taking down the monuments of historic English kings and leaders would probably send that army chap you're so worried about completely round the bend.
And if you don't understand that Churchill's statue is 'sacred' metaphorically, not literally, then there's no helping you.
Of course we are worth invading by the leader of a poorer country with a stronger military like Putin
That said, Goering was famous for his ability to exude charm and bonhomie when he made the effort. Airey Neave also rather liked him.
Churchill, our greatest leader, must and will stay.
The only statues to be moved to museums are those like Colston whose fame and wealth came mainly through the slave trade
Cobra was attended by the first ministers of the various nations or their representatives. That’s is the right level.
Plus there are already heavy penalties for defacing or damaging war memorials. 10 years in jail is the current guidance for the judiciary.
Basically we ned to concentrate on making sure our current society does not support slavery rather than crying about the past. It is done.
I find it ironic that the same people who quite rightly say we cannot blame the people of Germany today for what their grandfathers did are very ready to demand apologies from the British today for what their distant ancestors did.
If Boris struggles with making decisions about more mundane issues like when to time a lockdown, he will be overwhelmed by all the letters he has to write to himself if he is called to command a nuclear strike.
It makes no sense until you realise it was an idiomatic phrase for lower class people.
That was asking for it...
https://image.vuukle.com/db64e232-9a71-491b-966d-ebf189a554f5-87182326-6029-4569-a2f9-b12dc3dc5efb
That is definitely ON and not to the side.
The police should have done their job with the first protest. Now we've got two mobs of idiots on the streets.
My personal favourite is federalism.
I’ve lost count of the number of times Scottish Labour have launched UK federalism as their shiny new strategy to finally squish Scottish patriots.
At a conservative estimate, at least 15 times during the last 30 years.
The UK is not an ex Soviet Union or satellite state. Luxembourg looks a bit tasty shall we have a go at them?
"Does my letter say 'Ah, just let it go!' or 'Turn everything west of the Urals into glass'? The real question, Vladimir, is 'Do you feel lucky?' Well, do ya, панк?"
As for what would actually happen in that scenario, we can't control the US, but 200 British warheads is more than enough to ruin anyone's day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn4Vhkmb4Lw
There is a good example causing an argument in Belgium at the moment where an RTBF TV crew prearranged with some youths to turn up to film them attacking a statue of Leopold II. Now if ever a statue needed to be removed it is that of Leopold II but TV crews should not be pre arranging meetings to film criminal activity. It comes dangerously close to incitement.
Will need a record of speaking up on issues such as racism and sexism and environmental damage - and preferably being anti those things rather than for them - but not in a way that has really got up people's noses in places like Bromley.
The USP, and this is what will allow the Cons to choose this person, will be a belief in "tough love", rather than subsidy and feather bedding, and in "looking beyond race and gender" rather than wallowing in victimhood.
When I picture the individual, I see Ray Winstone for some reason, but that is just a superficial thing that means nothing. Because of course it could be a woman.
A pro EU Tory candidate may do better (Dominic Grieve?) but would be worse than a Labour Mayor to Tory Eyes...
Er ... ouch.
There is an unattractive culture of bragging which permeates English culture. I don’t think they realise they’re doing it, but it is a defining national characteristic for folk with a bit of perspective from furth of England’s green and pleasant land.
System working well, send more money.
Hullo! I think you should, umm, err launch our great, brilliant, WORLD BEATING err,arr, PYROTECHNICS at Stuart Collier's house. I, err, think that's what, umm, Darry said.
(Dom, will this do?)
Best,
ABdPJ
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/14/even-tories-increasingly-fear-they-have-inflicted-the-worst-of-all-worlds-on-britain
It was Britain’s misfortune for the emergency to occur under a prime minister notably ill-suited to handling a crisis of this nature and magnitude. Time and again, I have heard accounts from inside government of warnings given and action exhorted only for the machinery never to properly click into gear for want of decisive leadership.
One critique, often to be heard now even from erstwhile admirers, is that his outfit at Number 10 is not so much a government as a campaign. More accomplished at generating propaganda than making policy..
His inadequacies would not have mattered so much were the prime minister surrounded by capable ministers. His weaknesses have been magnified because he deliberately appointed a cabinet conspicuously light on talent – “the nodding dogs”, as one senior Tory labels them.
Or does he sniff that there's a niche on the right for a party that would deal more 'forthrightly' with organisations such as BLM.
How will GE 2024 turn out if a new UKIP/Brexit Party or similar takes 5% of the vote? Unevenly spread, that will cause total havoc for the Tories in many seats.
THis isn;t about Europe. Farage senses people are more appalled about the authorities' response to BLM than is being reported. They are very angry.
Cue a whole load of speeches in the Featherstones and the Newports about the tory betrayal of our traditions blah blah blah
Cue a rise in the polls.
Cue tory panic.
If Biden triumphs, out there in the sticks of white America, they will be circling the wagons. Or rather the 4x4s.
But who are the possible applicants ?
I suspect that's why Alan Sugar is well thought of in some circles - he's the nearest the average person would think of as a British tech billionaire. That he dates back to the 1980s surely reveals something.
Apart from him there's the 'chain store entrepreneur' image the Conservatives like - echoes from the Thatcher era perhaps ?
There simply is, probably for the first time in our history, a credible conventional military threat to the United Kingdom. Counter insurgency, anti terrorism and expeditionary warfare as part of an alliance are all that our forces will fight in the foreseeable future.