Sorry to go back to Brexit so quickly, but a question that's troubling me. It seems that our 2 red lines are forming around 1) control of UK borders 2) no European Court of Justice oversight.
#1 I can at least understand. But my question to leavers is on #2 - assuming there is some arrangement with the EU albeit looser than we have now, who do we want to police it? Surely there needs to be some arbiter of disputes? No way the EU would agree that everything would be decided by the Supreme Court in London (which is stuffed with ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE lest we forget) So who? An entirely separate legal mechanism? A new court etc? Who would Leavers trust to oversee this?
Absolutely not the ECJ, Any future deal we make will be a deal between the EU and the UK.
The ECJ is a body of the EU and why would we trust a body of the EU to oversee a deal between the EU and the UK? How is the ECJ ever going to be impartial in any dispute between the UK and the EU? I don't know of any deal anywhere where one party is its own adjudicator between itself and another party.
That would be like NAFTA being overseen by SCOTUS. It isn't.
I can understand that reaction - so who? We're past the point when we can simply be against stuff, we have to have proposals we are in favour of.
Casino Royale helpfully suggested a bespoke court along the lines of the ISDS court made up of representatives from both sides. From where I'm sitting that would be worse than the ECJ as it would create a separate bureaucracy and power base - but I've learnt not to judge anything on Brexit from my vantage point.
Agreed a bespoke ISDS is the only viable solution and is standard for this sort of deal.
ISDS tend to have a minimal influence conflict resolution style whereas courts tend to view themselves as a law unto themselves so an ISDS would be far preferable to having a foreign bodies domestic court ruling over our agreements.
The NAFTA ISDS effectively overturned the democratic decision of the Quebec government to impose restrictions on GM crops.
Trump is Trump, but it's still going to be very scripted, probably the most scripted speech he's ever made. He knows the world will be listening, that it isn't the time or the place for hyperbole or pisstaking.
Just the thought of Trump standing there taking the oath is too weird for me. I mean seriously, is this actually happening or will I wake up shortly?
I still have the vision/dream of Mike Pence going all Aaron Burr and shooting Donald Trump.
Not sure how the Twenty-fifth amendment plays out in that scenario.
The assassination rate for presidents is about 9 % (4 out of 43, not 44 because Obama hasn't yet made it to the finish). Must be a real possibility.
Not really. If Obama is bumped off, I suspect it'll be after he's left office when the guard is down.
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
No because I don't believe it will happen in the form she suggests. As the country starts coming apart at the seams wiser council will take control and the wise folk from Hartlepool will be sidelined
Roger, off topic (but on-topic for you), not looking like much to touch La La Land at the Oscars. Not seen it yet, though I have now seen most of the other films around. What a crap year! Very few films or performances of note, IMHO. I've probably enjoyed many more of the documentaries this year than the drama. Not even occasional off-beat gems that you usually find in-amongst. I watched Paterson and thought "This is exactly the same Jim Jarmusch movie I was watching 30 years ago!" I made about 40 minutes of Silence - unremittingly bleak (it starts with Jesuit priests being tortured at a natural hot-springs, and gets even bleaker after that. Why was this a Scorcese passion-project for 30 years?).
Be interested to hear if I have missed something!
I don't think you have. It's one of the thinnest years I can remember. I did enjoy Patterson though. The four or five films I liked best are unlikely to be contenders and unlike others I didn't much like 'Arrival'. I found Amy Adam's simpering performance disappointing though I liked her in Tom Ford's 'Nocturnal Animals' and I liked the film. I haven't seen La la Land yet but I like Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling and musicals so I'm hopeful. My single favourite film was Almodovar's 'Julieta' which isn't likely to win anything followed by 'Childhood of a Leader' which also isn't. Scorcese's 'Silence' was so disappointing. He forgot that watching torture isn't enough. It needs a story too!
Sorry to go back to Brexit so quickly, but a question that's troubling me. It seems that our 2 red lines are forming around 1) control of UK borders 2) no European Court of Justice oversight.
#1 I can at least understand. But my question to leavers is on #2 - assuming there is some arrangement with the EU albeit looser than we have now, who do we want to police it? Surely there needs to be some arbiter of disputes? No way the EU would agree that everything would be decided by the Supreme Court in London (which is stuffed with ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE lest we forget) So who? An entirely separate legal mechanism? A new court etc? Who would Leavers trust to oversee this?
Absolutely not the ECJ, Any future deal we make will be a deal between the EU and the UK.
The ECJ is a body of the EU and why would we trust a body of the EU to oversee a deal between the EU and the UK? How is the ECJ ever going to be impartial in any dispute between the UK and the EU? I don't know of any deal anywhere where one party is its own adjudicator between itself and another party.
That would be like NAFTA being overseen by SCOTUS. It isn't.
I can understand that reaction - so who? We're past the point when we can simply be against stuff, we have to have proposals we are in favour of.
Casino Royale helpfully suggested a bespoke court along the lines of the ISDS court made up of representatives from both sides. From where I'm sitting that would be worse than the ECJ as it would create a separate bureaucracy and power base - but I've learnt not to judge anything on Brexit from my vantage point.
I'm no expert on this sort of stuff so there may well be good reason why this next suggestion is daft but why not have the WTO arbitrate any disputes that can't be resolved on a bilateral basis?
Trump is Trump, but it's still going to be very scripted, probably the most scripted speech he's ever made. He knows the world will be listening, that it isn't the time or the place for hyperbole or pisstaking.
Just the thought of Trump standing there taking the oath is too weird for me. I mean seriously, is this actually happening or will I wake up shortly?
I still have the vision/dream of Mike Pence going all Aaron Burr and shooting Donald Trump.
Not sure how the Twenty-fifth amendment plays out in that scenario.
The assassination rate for presidents is about 9 % (4 out of 43, not 44 because Obama hasn't yet made it to the finish). Must be a real possibility.
Not really. If Obama is bumped off, I suspect it'll be after he's left office when the guard is down.
A bit.
I meant Trump, the pedantry over the arithmetic was just pedantry. And I suspect ex POTUS get lifetime security from the Secret Service.
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
No because I don't believe it will happen in the form she suggests. As the country starts coming apart at the seams wiser council will take control and the wise folk from Hartlepool will be sidelined
It will happen.
The country won't fall apart.
Forex traders and luvvies will overreact. They will then wake up after the event, go back to work and at some point the penny will drop (as opposed to the pound), that most people will just get on with it.
Where can I play the pound on the markets?
Is there a Betfair "financials", or something?
I should clarify, that comment doesn't constitute financial advice.
(That said, I do remember 'Forex markets overreact' being explained mathematically by one of my economics lecturers at university - I don't remember the details but I think it was something to do with how the interest rates on gilts interacted with the rate of change in exchange rate - so there is some theory behind it).
As for where you can play the markets, I'm afraid I don't know.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
If Trump can mock the disabled in front of an adoring, cheering crowd; what's wrong with Streep using the platform she was given to call him out over it?
Firstly, I don't think Trump should be mocking the disabled. But he was running for political office.
It's not just Streep. Whenever many actors get up to receive an award *for their work in acting* they feel that what people really should be privileged to hear in gratitude is their political views, for which they expect to be applauded.
If you have a platform use it. Seems obvious to me. And if you are outraged that your future head of state openly mocks the disabled you should have every right to say so. If people do not agree they can switch off, turn over or fume.
So it's fine because you agree with what she's saying.
Fair enough, but I disagree: just because you are given a platform doesn't mean you should use it to say whatever you want, even if you can.
It's remarkably self-indulgent and pompous, and disrespectful to both the hosts and the audience. It ends with actors lecturing their (captive) paying audiences at the end of plays.
If they want to make a political statement, they can either go into politics, speak at a rally or convene a special political press conference to do so.
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
No because I don't believe it will happen in the form she suggests. As the country starts coming apart at the seams wiser council will take control and the wise folk from Hartlepool will be sidelined
Roger, off topic (but on-topic for you), not looking like much to touch La La Land at the Oscars. Not seen it yet, though I have now seen most of the other films around. What a crap year! Very few films or performances of note, IMHO. I've probably enjoyed many more of the documentaries this year than the drama. Not even occasional off-beat gems that you usually find in-amongst. I watched Paterson and thought "This is exactly the same Jim Jarmusch movie I was watching 30 years ago!" I made about 40 minutes of Silence - unremittingly bleak (it starts with Jesuit priests being tortured at a natural hot-springs, and gets even bleaker after that. Why was this a Scorcese passion-project for 30 years?).
Be interested to hear if I have missed something!
I don't think you have. It's one of the thinnest years I can remember. I did enjoy Patterson though. The four or five films I liked best are unlikely to be contenders and unlike others I didn't much like 'Arrival'. I found Amy Adam's simpering performance disappointing though I liked her in Tom Ford's 'Nocturnal Animals' and I liked the film. I haven't seen La la Land yet but I like Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling and musicals so I'm hopeful. My single favourite film was Almodovar's 'Julieta' which isn't likely to win anything followed by 'Childhood of a Leader' which also isn't. Scorcese's 'Silence' was so disappointing. He forgot that watching torture wasn't enough. He needed a story too!
Interesting, I have "Childhood of a Leader " out to watch next - thanks for the recommendation. I'll let you know how I get on.
I do wonder if box-set telly is killing mid-budget quality movies? The Marvel toss will get made regardless, but the rest? The talent seems to like the idea (= like the money!) of 30 or 40 episodes...
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
seconded
it's the total smugness of the writing which grates
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
No because I don't believe it will happen in the form she suggests. As the country starts coming apart at the seams wiser council will take control and the wise folk from Hartlepool will be sidelined
It will happen.
The country won't fall apart.
Forex traders and luvvies will overreact. They will then wake up after the event, go back to work and at some point the penny will drop (as opposed to the pound), that most people will just get on with it.
Where can I play the pound on the markets?
Is there a Betfair "financials", or something?
I should clarify, that comment doesn't constitute financial advice.
(That said, I do remember 'Forex markets overreact' being explained mathematically by one of my economics lecturers at university - I don't remember the details but I think it was something to do with how the interest rates on gilts interacted with the rate of change in exchange rate - so there is some theory behind it).
As for where you can play the markets, I'm afraid I don't know.
Noted it's not advice, and it's a conclusion I'd reached myself anyway, but I can't find an easy way to trade through Betfair.
Sure there are other options, but it would be for very minor stakes.
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
Your morning cafe au laits getting a bit pricey? The £ has had a bumpy ride both before and since Brexit but if the forecasters had got it right it would be around 20% lower than it is today.
No, the fall in £ was forecast to be between 12% and 18% in the event of a Brexit vote. That's equivalent to £:$ of $1.19 to $1.28, which is the range its currently in. The Treasury prediction was pretty much spot on.
It fell substantially in the months before the referendum [ from €1.45 to €1.30 just before the vote] due to the uncertainty developing as the vote neared. I am paid most of my UK income in sterling so I realIy do know how things have changed on a personal level. I also saw many forecasts that by now it could be below parity with both the dollar and the euro by now. That could still happen as the volatility is bound to continue for some time. However, overall the forecast troughs have yet to be reached.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
seconded
it's the total smugness of the writing which grates
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
No because I don't believe it will happen in the form she suggests. As the country starts coming apart at the seams wiser council will take control and the wise folk from Hartlepool will be sidelined
It will happen.
The country won't fall apart.
Forex traders and luvvies will overreact. They will then wake up after the event, go back to work and at some point the penny will drop (as opposed to the pound), that most people will just get on with it.
Where can I play the pound on the markets?
Is there a Betfair "financials", or something?
Loads of Forex sites but it is a total mugs game and easy to lose a, lot quite quickly especially for those trying to 'play' the market.
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
No because I don't believe it will happen in the form she suggests. As the country starts coming apart at the seams wiser council will take control and the wise folk from Hartlepool will be sidelined
It will happen.
The country won't fall apart.
Forex traders and luvvies will overreact. They will then wake up after the event, go back to work and at some point the penny will drop (as opposed to the pound), that most people will just get on with it.
Where can I play the pound on the markets?
Is there a Betfair "financials", or something?
Loads of Forex sites but it is a total mugs game and easy to lose a, lot quite quickly especially for those trying to 'play' the market.
Let's say I wanted to bet the UK exchange rate is below 1.20 in June 2016 and put, say £50, on it. Would someone offer me odds on it?
Or is it more like a spreadbet or futures, where I bet what the Forex Xrate will be on a particular date in the future, and then sell or buy at £10 per cent (or similar) over the current market midprice?
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
seconded
it's the total smugness of the writing which grates
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
No because I don't believe it will happen in the form she suggests. As the country starts coming apart at the seams wiser council will take control and the wise folk from Hartlepool will be sidelined
It will be a very rocky ride, with the pound all over the place, and the deal will only be struck at one minute to midnight but the rest of your post is hyperbole.
Even if it goes according to plan, there isn't a single 'midnight' moment. Just a series of bumps as power is progressively stripped away from Westminster.
So far events are playing out exactly as I predicted.
Could you point me to the bullet points (with date) setting out your prediction, please,
Despite all appearances I don't have time to go looking for past posts now but will oblige when I can. It's no secret that I don't think Brexit will happen.
If Brexit, even soft Brexit, didn't happen, UKIP may well win the next election in my view. However May will undertake Brexit, even if the form is not yet completely determined, so they won't
UKIP are a busted flush. Even their European allies are deserting them. Trump will dump Farage and prove to be an agent of European integration.
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
No because I don't believe it will happen in the form she suggests. As the country starts coming apart at the seams wiser council will take control and the wise folk from Hartlepool will be sidelined
Roger, off topic (but on-topic for you), not looking like much to touch La La Land at the Oscars. Not seen it yet, though I have now seen most of the other films around. What a crap year! Very few films or performances of note, IMHO. I've probably enjoyed many more of the documentaries this year than the drama. Not even occasional off-beat gems that you usually find in-amongst. I watched Paterson and thought "This is exactly the same Jim Jarmusch movie I was watching 30 years ago!" I made about 40 minutes of Silence - unremittingly bleak (it starts with Jesuit priests being tortured at a natural hot-springs, and gets even bleaker after that. Why was this a Scorcese passion-project for 30 years?).
Be interested to hear if I have missed something!
I don't think you have. It's one of the thinnest years I can remember. I did enjoy Patterson though. The four or five films I liked best are unlikely to be contenders and unlike others I didn't much like 'Arrival'. I found Amy Adam's simpering performance disappointing though I liked her in Tom Ford's 'Nocturnal Animals' and I liked the film. I haven't seen La la Land yet but I like Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling and musicals so I'm hopeful. My single favourite film was Almodovar's 'Julieta' which isn't likely to win anything followed by 'Childhood of a Leader' which also isn't. Scorcese's 'Silence' was so disappointing. He forgot that watching torture isn't enough. It needs a story too!
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
Roger, off topic (but on-topic for you), not looking like much to touch La La Land at the Oscars. Not seen it yet, though I have now seen most of the other films around. What a crap year! Very few films or performances of note, IMHO. I've probably enjoyed many more of the documentaries this year than the drama. Not even occasional off-beat gems that you usually find in-amongst. I watched Paterson and thought "This is exactly the same Jim Jarmusch movie I was watching 30 years ago!" I made about 40 minutes of Silence - unremittingly bleak (it starts with Jesuit priests being tortured at a natural hot-springs, and gets even bleaker after that. Why was this a Scorcese passion-project for 30 years?).
Be interested to hear if I have missed something!
I don't think you have. It's one of the thinnest years I can remember. I did enjoy Patterson though. The four or five films I liked best are unlikely to be contenders and unlike others I didn't much like 'Arrival'. I found Amy Adam's simpering performance disappointing though I liked her in Tom Ford's 'Nocturnal Animals' and I liked the film. I haven't seen La la Land yet but I like Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling and musicals so I'm hopeful. My single favourite film was Almodovar's 'Julieta' which isn't likely to win anything followed by 'Childhood of a Leader' which also isn't. Scorcese's 'Silence' was so disappointing. He forgot that watching torture wasn't enough. He needed a story too!
Interesting, I have "Childhood of a Leader " out to watch next - thanks for the recommendation. I'll let you know how I get on.
I do wonder if box-set telly is killing mid-budget quality movies? The Marvel toss will get made regardless, but the rest? The talent seems to like the idea (= like the money!) of 30 or 40 episodes...
A film that I haven't seen yet but expect to be good-it's out in a couple of weeks-is Hacksaw Ridge (produced by my ex PA.*) From what I've been told it'll definitely be a contender and for all his foibles Mel Gibson knows how to tell a story.
Trump is Trump, but it's still going to be very scripted, probably the most scripted speech he's ever made. He knows the world will be listening, that it isn't the time or the place for hyperbole or pisstaking.
Just the thought of Trump standing there taking the oath is too weird for me. I mean seriously, is this actually happening or will I wake up shortly?
I still have the vision/dream of Mike Pence going all Aaron Burr and shooting Donald Trump.
Not sure how the Twenty-fifth amendment plays out in that scenario.
The assassination rate for presidents is about 9 % (4 out of 43, not 44 because Obama hasn't yet made it to the finish). Must be a real possibility.
Not really. If Obama is bumped off, I suspect it'll be after he's left office when the guard is down.
A bit.
I meant Trump, the pedantry over the arithmetic was just pedantry. And I suspect ex POTUS get lifetime security from the Secret Service.
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
No because I don't believe it will happen in the form she suggests. As the country starts coming apart at the seams wiser council will take control and the wise folk from Hartlepool will be sidelined
It will be a very rocky ride, with the pound all over the place, and the deal will only be struck at one minute to midnight but the rest of your post is hyperbole.
Even if it goes according to plan, there isn't a single 'midnight' moment. Just a series of bumps as power is progressively stripped away from Westminster.
So far events are playing out exactly as I predicted.
Could you point me to the bullet points (with date) setting out your prediction, please,
Despite all appearances I don't have time to go looking for past posts now but will oblige when I can. It's no secret that I don't think Brexit will happen.
If Brexit, even soft Brexit, didn't happen, UKIP may well win the next election in my view. However May will undertake Brexit, even if the form is not yet completely determined, so they won't
UKIP are a busted flush. Even their European allies are deserting them. Trump will dump Farage and prove to be an agent of European integration.
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
Roger, off topic (but on-topic for you), not looking like much to touch La La Land at the Oscars. Not seen it yet, though I have now seen most of the other films around. What a crap year! Very few films or performances of note, IMHO. I've probably enjoyed many more of the documentaries this year than the drama. Not even occasional off-beat gems that you usually find in-amongst. I watched Paterson and thought "This is exactly the same Jim Jarmusch movie I was watching 30 years ago!" I made about 40 minutes of Silence - unremittingly bleak (it starts with Jesuit priests being tortured at a natural hot-springs, and gets even bleaker after that. Why was this a Scorcese passion-project for 30 years?).
Be interested to hear if I have missed something!
I don't think you have. It's one of the thinnest years I can remember. I did enjoy Patterson though. The four or five films I liked best are unlikely to be contenders and unlike others I didn't much like 'Arrival'. I found Amy Adam's simpering performance disappointing though I liked her in Tom Ford's 'Nocturnal Animals' and I liked the film. I haven't seen La la Land yet but I like Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling and musicals so I'm hopeful. My single favourite film was Almodovar's 'Julieta' which isn't likely to win anything followed by 'Childhood of a Leader' which also isn't. Scorcese's 'Silence' was so disappointing. He forgot that watching torture wasn't enough. He needed a story too!
Interesting, I have "Childhood of a Leader " out to watch next - thanks for the recommendation. I'll let you know how I get on.
I do wonder if box-set telly is killing mid-budget quality movies? The Marvel toss will get made regardless, but the rest? The talent seems to like the idea (= like the money!) of 30 or 40 episodes...
A film that I haven't seen yet but expect to be good-it's out in a couple of weeks-is Hacksaw Ridge (produced by my ex PA.*) From what I've been told it'll definitely be a contender and for all his foibles Mel Gibson knows how to tell a story.
*SW
Though I haven't seen it, isn't 'Manchester by the Sea' hotly tipped?
If Brexit was not implemented, it's more likely that Theresa May would be 22'ed and face a leadership challenge.
That's quite likely, but you're ignoring the prevailing political dynamics that will lead to its failure. As I've posted before, Brexit is the last hurrah of Euroscepticism. It is staring intellectual, political, and economic defeat in the face. The British state will get crushed between Merkel and Trump. Brexit is a friendless project that serves nobody's interests, including our own.
If Brexit was not implemented, it's more likely that Theresa May would be 22'ed and face a leadership challenge.
That's quite likely, but you're ignoring the prevailing political dynamics that will lead to its failure. As I've posted before, Brexit is the last hurrah of Euroscepticism. It is staring intellectual, political, and economic defeat in the face. The British state will get crushed between Merkel and Trump. Brexit is a friendless project that serves nobody's interests, including our own.
If Brexit was not implemented, it's more likely that Theresa May would be 22'ed and face a leadership challenge.
That's quite likely, but you're ignoring the prevailing political dynamics that will lead to its failure. As I've posted before, Brexit is the last hurrah of Euroscepticism. It is staring intellectual, political, and economic defeat in the face. The British state will get crushed between Merkel and Trump. Brexit is a friendless project that serves nobody's interests, including our own.
Yes, I'm aware of your views, as I'm sure you're aware that I think yours are a bit bonkers.
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
Roger, off topic (but on-topic for you), not looking like much to touch La La Land at the Oscars. Not seen it yet, though I have now seen most of the other films around. What a crap year! Very few films or performances of note, IMHO. I've probably enjoyed many more of the documentaries this year than the drama. Not even occasional off-beat gems that you usually find in-amongst. I watched Paterson and thought "This is exactly the same Jim Jarmusch movie I was watching 30 years ago!" I made about 40 minutes of Silence - unremittingly bleak (it starts with Jesuit priests being tortured at a natural hot-springs, and gets even bleaker after that. Why was this a Scorcese passion-project for 30 years?).
Be interested to hear if I have missed something!
I don't think you have. It's one of the thinnest years I can remember. I did enjoy Patterson though. The four or five films I liked best are unlikely to be contenders and unlike others I didn't much like 'Arrival'. I found Amy Adam's simpering performance disappointing though I liked her in Tom Ford's 'Nocturnal Animals' and I liked the film. I haven't seen La la Land yet but I like Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling and musicals so I'm hopeful. My single favourite film was Almodovar's 'Julieta' which isn't likely to win anything followed by 'Childhood of a Leader' which also isn't. Scorcese's 'Silence' was so disappointing. He forgot that watching torture wasn't enough. He needed a story too!
Interesting, I have "Childhood of a Leader " out to watch next - thanks for the recommendation. I'll let you know how I get on.
I do wonder if box-set telly is killing mid-budget quality movies? The Marvel toss will get made regardless, but the rest? The talent seems to like the idea (= like the money!) of 30 or 40 episodes...
A film that I haven't seen yet but expect to be good-it's out in a couple of weeks-is Hacksaw Ridge (produced by my ex PA.*) From what I've been told it'll definitely be a contender and for all his foibles Mel Gibson knows how to tell a story.
*SW
Though I haven't seen it, isn't 'Manchester by the Sea' hotly tipped?
Yes but I haven't seen it yet. All the contenders like to release their films late. They think the juries have a short attention span
If Brexit was not implemented, it's more likely that Theresa May would be 22'ed and face a leadership challenge.
That's quite likely, but you're ignoring the prevailing political dynamics that will lead to its failure. As I've posted before, Brexit is the last hurrah of Euroscepticism. It is staring intellectual, political, and economic defeat in the face. The British state will get crushed between Merkel and Trump. Brexit is a friendless project that serves nobody's interests, including our own.
Yes, I'm aware of your views, as I'm sure you're aware that I think yours are a bit bonkers.
I'll be magnanimous when I'm proved right. How about an evening at Ronnie Scott's?
If Brexit was not implemented, it's more likely that Theresa May would be 22'ed and face a leadership challenge.
That's quite likely, but you're ignoring the prevailing political dynamics that will lead to its failure. As I've posted before, Brexit is the last hurrah of Euroscepticism. It is staring intellectual, political, and economic defeat in the face. The British state will get crushed between Merkel and Trump. Brexit is a friendless project that serves nobody's interests, including our own.
Complete rubbish. Trump won mainly because of the aftermath of Brexit an on the same wave of white working and lower middle-class anger at globalisation, uncontrolled immigration and outsourcing while the third party in Germany is now the anti Euro AfD. If anything the tide is turning against trading blocks and supranational institutions like NAFTA, TPP, the EU and Eurozone not in favour of them
An inevitable consequence of the political decisions made in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis - to protect the the tory client vote at the expense of the young poor.
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
No because I don't believe it will happen in the form she suggests. As the country starts coming apart at the seams wiser council will take control and the wise folk from Hartlepool will be sidelined
It will be a very rocky ride, with the pound all over the place, and the deal will only be struck at one minute to midnight but the rest of your post is hyperbole.
Even if it goes according to plan, there isn't a single 'midnight' moment. Just a series of bumps as power is progressively stripped away from Westminster.
So far events are playing out exactly as I predicted.
Could you point me to the bullet points (with date) setting out your prediction, please,
Despite all appearances I don't have time to go looking for past posts now but will oblige when I can. It's no secret that I don't think Brexit will happen.
If Brexit, even soft Brexit, didn't happen, UKIP may well win the next election in my view. However May will undertake Brexit, even if the form is not yet completely determined, so they won't
UKIP are a busted flush. Even their European allies are deserting them. Trump will dump Farage and prove to be an agent of European integration.
Trump is Trump, but it's still going to be very scripted, probably the most scripted speech he's ever made. He knows the world will be listening, that it isn't the time or the place for hyperbole or pisstaking.
Just the thought of Trump standing there taking the oath is too weird for me. I mean seriously, is this actually happening or will I wake up shortly?
I still have the vision/dream of Mike Pence going all Aaron Burr and shooting Donald Trump.
Not sure how the Twenty-fifth amendment plays out in that scenario.
The assassination rate for presidents is about 9 % (4 out of 43, not 44 because Obama hasn't yet made it to the finish). Must be a real possibility.
Not really. If Obama is bumped off, I suspect it'll be after he's left office when the guard is down.
A bit.
I meant Trump, the pedantry over the arithmetic was just pedantry. And I suspect ex POTUS get lifetime security from the Secret Service.
Other countries don't need to accept free movement to have a trade deal and access.
"we will have to talk about restricting single market access"
We already knew that. Note she doesn't say *no* access, unlike the Junckers and Tusks of this world. She just says it will be restricted - i.e. not fully open.
The deal should be: if you want tighter control on free movement, you will get less access on the single market as a tit-for-tat. You need to be fully open on people to get full openness on goods, capital and services. Or you could pay even more into the EU budget instead.
Trump is Trump, but it's still going to be very scripted, probably the most scripted speech he's ever made. He knows the world will be listening, that it isn't the time or the place for hyperbole or pisstaking.
Just the thought of Trump standing there taking the oath is too weird for me. I mean seriously, is this actually happening or will I wake up shortly?
I still have the vision/dream of Mike Pence going all Aaron Burr and shooting Donald Trump.
Not sure how the Twenty-fifth amendment plays out in that scenario.
The assassination rate for presidents is about 9 % (4 out of 43, not 44 because Obama hasn't yet made it to the finish). Must be a real possibility.
Not really. If Obama is bumped off, I suspect it'll be after he's left office when the guard is down.
A bit.
I meant Trump, the pedantry over the arithmetic was just pedantry. And I suspect ex POTUS get lifetime security from the Secret Service.
Has an ex POTUS ever been bumped off?
Saddam Hussein tried to bump off George Bush Senior when he was an ex POTUS
An inevitable consequence of the political decisions made in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis - to protect the the tory client vote at the expense of the young poor.
A generation fucked. And they know it.
The young would get hardest hit from most governments in a time of recession.
If we'd had 3m unemployed, you know who it would be.
If Brexit was not implemented, it's more likely that Theresa May would be 22'ed and face a leadership challenge.
That's quite likely, but you're ignoring the prevailing political dynamics that will lead to its failure. As I've posted before, Brexit is the last hurrah of Euroscepticism. It is staring intellectual, political, and economic defeat in the face. The British state will get crushed between Merkel and Trump. Brexit is a friendless project that serves nobody's interests, including our own.
Yes, I'm aware of your views, as I'm sure you're aware that I think yours are a bit bonkers.
I'll be magnanimous when I'm proved right. How about an evening at Ronnie Scott's?
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
This Guardian review also rings true:
"When its budgets and audience were smaller, Sherlock could not have been accused of being camp. It mapped out Holmes’ mental machinations with verve and integrity. It was mischievous but loyal to the source material; and, crucially, it felt plausible.
The problems with the show, once so surprising and so vital, began in series three, when it had become a phenomenon. A single decision shoulders much of the blame. When Moffat, Gatiss or both decided that Mary Watson just had to be a ninja assassin with a murky past, they took ill-advised liberties with Conan Doyle’s stories in what one can only assume was an attempt to make the programme even sexier. It failed. None of the scenes involving Mary ring true. How can the viewer be expected to believe that both John Watson’s best friend and his wife could be waist-deep in such extraordinarily cool activities? The show began to feel implausible, a fate from which it has never recovered.
As the Miss Marple TV series reached the autumn of its years, its writers did not decide that what the character really needed was to pump lead into some bad guys. Poirot would not have been a better show if the moustachioed detective had an assistant who was also a Navy SEAL. There is obviously an audience and an appetite for abseiling assassins, machine-gun shootouts and Benedict Cumberbatch getting sopping wet while kicking ass in an expensive suit – as he does in latest episode The Six Thatchers. But, like the perverse instincts that lurk in the palaces of our minds, this is an appetite that ought to be resisted. Sherlock’s unofficial tagline is “brainy is the new sexy”. It feels like it gave up being brainy a while ago. Soon it may even cease to be sexy. Before you know it, it will have become James Bond.
Trump is Trump, but it's still going to be very scripted, probably the most scripted speech he's ever made. He knows the world will be listening, that it isn't the time or the place for hyperbole or pisstaking.
Just the thought of Trump standing there taking the oath is too weird for me. I mean seriously, is this actually happening or will I wake up shortly?
I still have the vision/dream of Mike Pence going all Aaron Burr and shooting Donald Trump.
Not sure how the Twenty-fifth amendment plays out in that scenario.
The assassination rate for presidents is about 9 % (4 out of 43, not 44 because Obama hasn't yet made it to the finish). Must be a real possibility.
Not really. If Obama is bumped off, I suspect it'll be after he's left office when the guard is down.
A bit.
I meant Trump, the pedantry over the arithmetic was just pedantry. And I suspect ex POTUS get lifetime security from the Secret Service.
Has an ex POTUS ever been bumped off?
No, although Theodore Roosevelt was shot in the 1912 election, when he was running as a Bull Moose Progressive. He only survived because he planned to give (and did give) such a long speech: the bullet passed through all 50 pages (folded double) and slowed sufficiently to come to rest on his fourth rib rather than reaching more vital organs.
"It's shocking how many feel so desperate about their situation and it is vital that we support them to develop the confidence and coping skills they need to support in life."
They do seem to be getting more and more fretful.
I remember the older generation telling me I had it lucky. No bombs dropping, much less likely to die of polio, TB or smallpox, enough to eat most days, and if I moved quickly, I might even get on the council house list. How lucky we were.
More so because we didn't have to brave face book and other social media, and worry about how we looked.
I wonder what's made the difference in those forty or fifty years?
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
Teddy Roosevelt was shot in the chest after leaving office in the midst of a speech for his 1912 election campaign. Having decided he wasn't mortally wounded, he finished the speech.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
wasnt it meant to be Brexit which stop govt in NI ?
oh well another false prediction
I've thought since early on in this debacle that Foster's personality would not allow her to remain as FM for very long.
Spotlight interviews, which are hardly Paxman-esque, make her come across as defensive, stubborn and aggressive. In anywhere other than NI, the glass ceiling would have been far lower.
Is this the first time ever that Martin McGuinness has given a two hour warning before something major happens?
Was it sent in a coded message to the newspapers?
If anything, this may be good for NI. It's a fairly amusing and boring political scandal that shows NI politics has finally grown up, if only to the adolescent level of UK politics.
An inevitable consequence of the political decisions made in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis - to protect the the tory client vote at the expense of the young poor.
A generation fucked. And they know it.
I recognise and understand almost all of the content of that article. The young do have it very tough.
But, the Left have pitifully few answers either.
The best answer I could come up with would have been to cut national insurance for employers, not to restrict housing benefit to the over 25s, give greater student loans, and grants, all at the expense of continuing very generous pensioner benefits, and build more homes. I would not have played with tax credits much, save to reduce the taper rate a bit.
But, even that would be barely scraping the tip of the iceberg.
The Government has done some good things on apprenticeships and the minimum wage, but it's not enough. It's the global economics, demographics and tech change that are the killers combined with the West inflating asset values as the only way to continue to stimulate growth.
Is this the first time ever that Martin McGuinness has given a two hour warning before something major happens?
I thought the IRA often gave warnings before they bombed, maybe my memory is playing up
Sometimes they'd give warnings even if there were no bombs, just for the LOLs. A factory my family know well had a couple of such warnings in the eighties. It caused absolute chaos.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
The Spectator is often left to provide the platform to say the things that no other publication dare.
Charles Moore is often unreadable. And not in a good way.
I find him consistently excellent.
Delingpole I find a bit of a bore, and rather embarrassing to boot.
Charles Moore's columns are simply a distillation of that weeks Telegraph letters to the editor.
I think he writes convincingly, and often makes me think about things from new angles I hadn't considered.
Of course, he does write from the perspective of a lucid social conservative. But that should be what makes him interesting in-and-of itself, even if you don't agree with him.
Is this the first time ever that Martin McGuinness has given a two hour warning before something major happens?
I thought the IRA often gave warnings before they bombed, maybe my memory is playing up
Sometimes they'd give warnings even if there were no bombs, just for the LOLs. A factory my family know well had a couple of such warnings in the eighties. It caused absolute chaos.
BA used to get several bomb threats a day. None from PIRA or related Irish Republican groups.
Edit: the point being that there were plenty of hoaxers around making such threats and most if not all can be weeded out. I'm surprised at the action of that factory.
FPT. As everyone knows the £ has dropped another 1% (infact slightly more) against both the $ and the Euro. Mrs May was never meant to be a leader. She neither prepared for it nor is she up to it.
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
It's going to be a long 28 months for you, isn't it?
No because I don't believe it will happen in the form she suggests. As the country starts coming apart at the seams wiser council will take control and the wise folk from Hartlepool will be sidelined
It will happen.
The country won't fall apart.
Forex traders and luvvies will overreact. They will then wake up after the event, go back to work and at some point the penny will drop (as opposed to the pound), that most people will just get on with it.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
seconded
it's the total smugness of the writing which grates
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
The Spectator is often left to provide the platform to say the things that no other publication dare.
Charles Moore is often unreadable. And not in a good way.
I find him consistently excellent.
Delingpole I find a bit of a bore, and rather embarrassing to boot.
Charles Moore's columns are simply a distillation of that weeks Telegraph letters to the editor.
I think he writes convincingly, and often makes me think about things from new angles I hadn't considered.
Of course, he does write from the perspective of a lucid social conservative. But that should be what makes him interesting in-and-of itself, even if you don't agree with him.
Yes he is a good writer when not everyone is. But dished up week after week is a bit much for my tastes.
Is this the first time ever that Martin McGuinness has given a two hour warning before something major happens?
I thought the IRA often gave warnings before they bombed, maybe my memory is playing up
Sometimes they'd give warnings even if there were no bombs, just for the LOLs. A factory my family know well had a couple of such warnings in the eighties. It caused absolute chaos.
The rotters! The building I worked in at my first job was in the top 5 of their hitlist at the time.
The problems with the show, once so surprising and so vital, began in series three, when it had become a phenomenon. A single decision shoulders much of the blame. When Moffat, Gatiss or both decided that Mary Watson just had to be a ninja assassin with a murky past, they took ill-advised liberties with Conan Doyle’s stories in what one can only assume was an attempt to make the programme even sexier. It failed. None of the scenes involving Mary ring true. How can the viewer be expected to believe that both John Watson’s best friend and his wife could be waist-deep in such extraordinarily cool activities? The show began to feel implausible, a fate from which it has never recovered.
They really do need to drop the pretense that it's based on Conan Doyle's stories now.
In the first couple of series you could loosely identify the tales, even though it was riddled with early-Tweenies trappings (which will make the show look hideously dated in a few years time, a la 2005 Doctor Who).
Now it is so far removed from the source material as to bear almost no resemblance. Essentially the process is 'pick one feature from a Holmes story, construct a completely different adventure around it then whack in a load of sub-plots from the wider story-arc'.
That said, I still enjoy watching the show more than most of the other dross out there...
An inevitable consequence of the political decisions made in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis - to protect the the tory client vote at the expense of the young poor.
A generation fucked. And they know it.
The young would get hardest hit from most governments in a time of recession.
If we'd had 3m unemployed, you know who it would be.
The young *in the UK* have jobs (if they want them) but they don't have as much spare cash as they might have had 10-20 years ago and there are probably, now, slightly fewer avenues to career success, if defined in terms of well-remunerated employment.
But they probably have more choices than 40-50 years ago, purely because of the changes in gender participation in the workforce, and labour market reform.
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
The Spectator is often left to provide the platform to say the things that no other publication dare.
Charles Moore is often unreadable. And not in a good way.
I find him consistently excellent.
Delingpole I find a bit of a bore, and rather embarrassing to boot.
Charles Moore's columns are simply a distillation of that weeks Telegraph letters to the editor.
I think he writes convincingly, and often makes me think about things from new angles I hadn't considered.
Of course, he does write from the perspective of a lucid social conservative. But that should be what makes him interesting in-and-of itself, even if you don't agree with him.
Yes he is a good writer when not everyone is. But dished up week after week is a bit much for my tastes.
Can you think of a columnist who is ALWAYS good and on point? I can't. It's humanly impossible.
Agree. I can't remember, that said, when I read something off from Nick Cohen or Mark Steyn.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
An inevitable consequence of the political decisions made in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis - to protect the the tory client vote at the expense of the young poor.
A generation fucked. And they know it.
The young would get hardest hit from most governments in a time of recession.
If we'd had 3m unemployed, you know who it would be.
The young *in the UK* have jobs (if they want them) but they don't have as much spare cash as they might have had 10-20 years ago and there are probably, now, slightly fewer avenues to career success, if defined in terms of well-remunerated employment.
But they probably have more choices than 40-50 years ago, purely because of the changes in gender participation in the workforce, and labour market reform.
But they haven't a hope of owning their own home. That immediately changes their relationship with the State. Should it? No of course not, and it doesn't in many other countries, but in the UK it does.
Is this the first time ever that Martin McGuinness has given a two hour warning before something major happens?
I thought the IRA often gave warnings before they bombed, maybe my memory is playing up
Sometimes they'd give warnings even if there were no bombs, just for the LOLs. A factory my family know well had a couple of such warnings in the eighties. It caused absolute chaos.
BA used to get several bomb threats a day. None from PIRA or related Irish Republican groups.
Edit: the point being that there were plenty of hoaxers around making such threats and most if not all can be weeded out. I'm surprised at the action of that factory.
I'm slightly surprised by that; I'd have though BA would have been a target for that sort of chicanery.
The factory was a large chemical plant, with lots of lovely chemicals, including nasties and explosive substances. It was a great place to work.
Apparently they were codeworded warnings, meaning they came from one or other of the groups. Or so the rumours went at the time.
An inevitable consequence of the political decisions made in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis - to protect the the tory client vote at the expense of the young poor.
A generation fucked. And they know it.
I recognise and understand almost all of the content of that article. The young do have it very tough.
But, the Left have pitifully few answers either.
The best answer I could come up with would have been to cut national insurance for employers, not to restrict housing benefit to the over 25s, give greater student loans, and grants, all at the expense of continuing very generous pensioner benefits, and build more homes. I would not have played with tax credits much, save to reduce the taper rate a bit.
But, even that would be barely scraping the tip of the iceberg.
The Government has done some good things on apprenticeships and the minimum wage, but it's not enough. It's the global economics, demographics and tech change that are the killers combined with the West inflating asset values as the only way to continue to stimulate growth.
I wouldn't want to be graduating now.
Banning unpaid internships would be a start. Horribly unfair on the poor and provincial.
Agreed.
One big thing that changed for me from the Brexit vote: I realised I care far more about the economic wellbeing of my kith and kin than I do about whether my taxes are at 20% or 22%.
I haven't used the word 'chav' for months.
I realised the big dealbreaker for me is actually social and communal stability, and national integrity, not maximising economic deregulation of the markets.
Is this the first time ever that Martin McGuinness has given a two hour warning before something major happens?
Boom boom.
So proud of that.
The tweet to Gerry Adams over Xmas was the best - he was complaining on twitter of being a grouch for having to turn off all the Xmas lights in his house.... the response was that surely he knew someone to contact who knew about timers.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
The Spectator is often left to provide the platform to say the things that no other publication dare.
Charles Moore is often unreadable. And not in a good way.
I find him consistently excellent.
Delingpole I find a bit of a bore, and rather embarrassing to boot.
Charles Moore's columns are simply a distillation of that weeks Telegraph letters to the editor.
I think he writes convincingly, and often makes me think about things from new angles I hadn't considered.
Of course, he does write from the perspective of a lucid social conservative. But that should be what makes him interesting in-and-of itself, even if you don't agree with him.
Yes he is a good writer when not everyone is. But dished up week after week is a bit much for my tastes.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
Yes thanks, and @SirBenjamin also described the deviation from the stories.
I've often wondered why Celebs are taken seriously when the pontificate. Especially the luvvies - people who have spent their lives parroting lines written by others who decide they have a voice of their own.
Nothing wrong with speaking out. It's expecting others to give them more credence than anyone else that puzzles me.
If it keeps them off street corners, though, all's well.
Is this the first time ever that Martin McGuinness has given a two hour warning before something major happens?
Boom boom.
So proud of that.
The tweet to Gerry Adams over Xmas was the best - he was complaining on twitter of being a grouch for having to turn off all the Xmas lights in his house.... the response was that surely he knew someone to contact who knew about timers.
An inevitable consequence of the political decisions made in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis - to protect the the tory client vote at the expense of the young poor.
A generation fucked. And they know it.
The young would get hardest hit from most governments in a time of recession.
If we'd had 3m unemployed, you know who it would be.
The young *in the UK* have jobs (if they want them) but they don't have as much spare cash as they might have had 10-20 years ago and there are probably, now, slightly fewer avenues to career success, if defined in terms of well-remunerated employment.
But they probably have more choices than 40-50 years ago, purely because of the changes in gender participation in the workforce, and labour market reform.
But they haven't a hope of owning their own home. That immediately changes their relationship with the State. Should it? No of course not, and it doesn't in many other countries, but in the UK it does.
Correct.
I think this is a problem for Conservatives like us, unless they all inherit homes from their parents pronto, because down the line they will be voting for rent controls and heavy taxes on the upper middle classes, and, ultimately, rather Left-wing governments, if we can't demonstrate now that they have a chance of sharing a piece of the pie.
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
I think the problem was mis-using the awards ceremony for that purpose.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
Comments
A bit.
(That said, I do remember 'Forex markets overreact' being explained mathematically by one of my economics lecturers at university - I don't remember the details but I think it was something to do with how the interest rates on gilts interacted with the rate of change in exchange rate - so there is some theory behind it).
As for where you can play the markets, I'm afraid I don't know.
Fair enough, but I disagree: just because you are given a platform doesn't mean you should use it to say whatever you want, even if you can.
It's remarkably self-indulgent and pompous, and disrespectful to both the hosts and the audience. It ends with actors lecturing their (captive) paying audiences at the end of plays.
If they want to make a political statement, they can either go into politics, speak at a rally or convene a special political press conference to do so.
I do wonder if box-set telly is killing mid-budget quality movies? The Marvel toss will get made regardless, but the rest? The talent seems to like the idea (= like the money!) of 30 or 40 episodes...
it's the total smugness of the writing which grates
Sure there are other options, but it would be for very minor stakes.
And, yes, I'm being a bit lazy in asking.
"Heal the wounds" is the only one I went for.
Or is it more like a spreadbet or futures, where I bet what the Forex Xrate will be on a particular date in the future, and then sell or buy at £10 per cent (or similar) over the current market midprice?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4098478/Strident-Brexiteer-revealed-leading-candidate-Donald-Trump-s-new-ambassador-EU.html
Am I right, or am I right?
*SW
Definitely an opportunity if he effectively releases it early.
Also LOL @ Hard working families
Merkel really is being an ***hole.
Other countries don't need to accept free movement to have a trade deal and access.
BBC - Deputy First Minister McGuinness to resign
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38561507
https://twitter.com/markdevenport/status/818469638858297344
oh well another false prediction
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38518543
An inevitable consequence of the political decisions made in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis - to protect the the tory client vote at the expense of the young poor.
A generation fucked. And they know it.
We already knew that. Note she doesn't say *no* access, unlike the Junckers and Tusks of this world. She just says it will be restricted - i.e. not fully open.
The deal should be: if you want tighter control on free movement, you will get less access on the single market as a tit-for-tat. You need to be fully open on people to get full openness on goods, capital and services. Or you could pay even more into the EU budget instead.
And that's the negotiation to be had.
which is why I rarely make predictions about the place, it has a logic of it's own
If we'd had 3m unemployed, you know who it would be.
Hopefully not Junior or wee Jeffrey
"When its budgets and audience were smaller, Sherlock could not have been accused of being camp. It mapped out Holmes’ mental machinations with verve and integrity. It was mischievous but loyal to the source material; and, crucially, it felt plausible.
The problems with the show, once so surprising and so vital, began in series three, when it had become a phenomenon. A single decision shoulders much of the blame. When Moffat, Gatiss or both decided that Mary Watson just had to be a ninja assassin with a murky past, they took ill-advised liberties with Conan Doyle’s stories in what one can only assume was an attempt to make the programme even sexier. It failed. None of the scenes involving Mary ring true. How can the viewer be expected to believe that both John Watson’s best friend and his wife could be waist-deep in such extraordinarily cool activities? The show began to feel implausible, a fate from which it has never recovered.
As the Miss Marple TV series reached the autumn of its years, its writers did not decide that what the character really needed was to pump lead into some bad guys. Poirot would not have been a better show if the moustachioed detective had an assistant who was also a Navy SEAL. There is obviously an audience and an appetite for abseiling assassins, machine-gun shootouts and Benedict Cumberbatch getting sopping wet while kicking ass in an expensive suit – as he does in latest episode The Six Thatchers. But, like the perverse instincts that lurk in the palaces of our minds, this is an appetite that ought to be resisted. Sherlock’s unofficial tagline is “brainy is the new sexy”. It feels like it gave up being brainy a while ago. Soon it may even cease to be sexy. Before you know it, it will have become James Bond.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jan/03/sherlock-slowly-perversely-morphing-into-james-bond-benedict-cumberbatch
If there are Northern Ireland elections, odds on Jeremy Corbyn going to Northern Ireland and campaigning for Sinn Féin?
"It's shocking how many feel so desperate about their situation and it is vital that we support them to develop the confidence and coping skills they need to support in life."
They do seem to be getting more and more fretful.
I remember the older generation telling me I had it lucky. No bombs dropping, much less likely to die of polio, TB or smallpox, enough to eat most days, and if I moved quickly, I might even get on the council house list. How lucky we were.
More so because we didn't have to brave face book and other social media, and worry about how we looked.
I wonder what's made the difference in those forty or fifty years?
Delingpole I find a bit of a bore, and rather embarrassing to boot.
EDIT I see Mr Eagles has covered this already.
SECOND EDIT FOR ERRATUM Mr Herdson.
If anything, this may be good for NI. It's a fairly amusing and boring political scandal that shows NI politics has finally grown up, if only to the adolescent level of UK politics.
But, the Left have pitifully few answers either.
The best answer I could come up with would have been to cut national insurance for employers, not to restrict housing benefit to the over 25s, give greater student loans, and grants, all at the expense of continuing very generous pensioner benefits, and build more homes. I would not have played with tax credits much, save to reduce the taper rate a bit.
But, even that would be barely scraping the tip of the iceberg.
The Government has done some good things on apprenticeships and the minimum wage, but it's not enough. It's the global economics, demographics and tech change that are the killers combined with the West inflating asset values as the only way to continue to stimulate growth.
I wouldn't want to be graduating now.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/arlene-foster-cant-see-all-the-haters-when-i-got-my-love-glasses-on-35346556.html
Of course, he does write from the perspective of a lucid social conservative. But that should be what makes him interesting in-and-of itself, even if you don't agree with him.
Edit: the point being that there were plenty of hoaxers around making such threats and most if not all can be weeded out. I'm surprised at the action of that factory.
They really do need to drop the pretense that it's based on Conan Doyle's stories now.
In the first couple of series you could loosely identify the tales, even though it was riddled with early-Tweenies trappings (which will make the show look hideously dated in a few years time, a la 2005 Doctor Who).
Now it is so far removed from the source material as to bear almost no resemblance. Essentially the process is 'pick one feature from a Holmes story, construct a completely different adventure around it then whack in a load of sub-plots from the wider story-arc'.
That said, I still enjoy watching the show more than most of the other dross out there...
But they probably have more choices than 40-50 years ago, purely because of the changes in gender participation in the workforce, and labour market reform.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/818480053742923776
The factory was a large chemical plant, with lots of lovely chemicals, including nasties and explosive substances. It was a great place to work.
Apparently they were codeworded warnings, meaning they came from one or other of the groups. Or so the rumours went at the time.
One big thing that changed for me from the Brexit vote: I realised I care far more about the economic wellbeing of my kith and kin than I do about whether my taxes are at 20% or 22%.
I haven't used the word 'chav' for months.
I realised the big dealbreaker for me is actually social and communal stability, and national integrity, not maximising economic deregulation of the markets.
Nothing wrong with speaking out. It's expecting others to give them more credence than anyone else that puzzles me.
If it keeps them off street corners, though, all's well.
https://twitter.com/GrahamGalway/status/812064235740164097
I think this is a problem for Conservatives like us, unless they all inherit homes from their parents pronto, because down the line they will be voting for rent controls and heavy taxes on the upper middle classes, and, ultimately, rather Left-wing governments, if we can't demonstrate now that they have a chance of sharing a piece of the pie.
I think the problem was mis-using the awards ceremony for that purpose.