politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A cartoon ahead of tomorrow’s historic Trump-May meeting in Wa

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmmm

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.

Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.

However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.

They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/theresa-may-preparing-abandon-plans-british-bill-rights-sources/

Once free of the ECJ we don't need a bill of rights and we've done without one for a millennium . Seems logical.

Nah, what we've done is partly codified parts of the constitution and left swathes of it unwritten.

We need to ensure of all it is written down.

Just remember prior to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the grounds for the Monarch granting/denying an early general election was based on a letter to The Times in the 50s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles

There used to be a phrase 'bad money drives out good', it is certain that bad food drives out good.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmmm

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.

Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.

However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.

They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/theresa-may-preparing-abandon-plans-british-bill-rights-sources/

Once free of the ECJ we don't need a bill of rights and we've done without one for a millennium . Seems logical.

Nah, what we've done is partly codified parts of the constitution and left swathes of it unwritten.

We need to ensure of all it is written down.

Just remember prior to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the grounds for the Monarch granting/denying an early general election was based on a letter to The Times in the 50s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles

And there's a problem with constitution by pseudo-anonymous Letters to the Editor?

dixiedean said:

chestnut said:

rcs1000 said:

Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.

I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.

You are making a big leap into assuming that Trump's discontent over a trade deal with Mexico is somehow lurching into overall protectionism.

Perhaps, he's just looking for more suitable partners?

A bit like Brexit.

Nothing in Trump's rhetoric suggests he is looking for more suitable partners. He is looking to screw over weaker countries (which compared to US is everyone).

And everything he has done so far suggests he intends to follow through on his rhetoric.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'm not sure what I think about May's speech with a nod to end liberal interventionism.

My views are far closer to Blair's and Osborne's in the UK aiming to shape the world around us, rather than isolationist.

I agree on that on the latter part.

Dropping bombs on people until they agree to adopt our systems of governance has not actually proved to be a very successful strategy in recent years.

Indeed, we need to do more than that.

One of my major critcisms of George W Bush was he said America didn't do nation building, he was wrong, America helped build West Germany and Japan into successful nations

TOPPING said:

Just popped in after dinner at an overpriced restaurant in Chelsea and upon a quick skim I see people are in favour of tearing up our trade deals with Africa because unit labour costs are cheaper over there.

Have I got that right?

it depends. What is their side saying? That is where we are nowadays.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmmm

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.

Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.

However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.

They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/theresa-may-preparing-abandon-plans-british-bill-rights-sources/

Once free of the ECJ we don't need a bill of rights and we've done without one for a millennium . Seems logical.

Nah, what we've done is partly codified parts of the constitution and left swathes of it unwritten.

We need to ensure of all it is written down.

Just remember prior to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the grounds for the Monarch granting/denying an early general election was based on a letter to The Times in the 50s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles

Well, we should all write better letters to The Times.

foxinsoxuk said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'm not sure what I think about May's speech with a nod to end liberal interventionism.

My views are far closer to Blair's and Osborne's in the UK aiming to shape the world around us, rather than isolationist.

Didn't May vote for the Iraq war, bombing Libya and bombing Syria? While the LDs opposed them?

Am I suffering from alternative facts, or is she?

Perhaps she's changed her view after said events?

Surprise surprise, Miliband prefers Merkel to May..

The virtue signaller's virtue signaller.

foxinsoxuk said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'm not sure what I think about May's speech with a nod to end liberal interventionism.

My views are far closer to Blair's and Osborne's in the UK aiming to shape the world around us, rather than isolationist.

Didn't May vote for the Iraq war, bombing Libya and bombing Syria? While the LDs opposed them?

Am I suffering from alternative facts, or is she?

You've become downright silly recently.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmmm

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.

Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.

However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.

They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/theresa-may-preparing-abandon-plans-british-bill-rights-sources/

Once free of the ECJ we don't need a bill of rights and we've done without one for a millennium . Seems logical.

Nah, what we've done is partly codified parts of the constitution and left swathes of it unwritten.

We need to ensure of all it is written down.

Just remember prior to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the grounds for the Monarch granting/denying an early general election was based on a letter to The Times in the 50s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles

No they weren't. It was just that a letter to the Times was chosen as a vehicle to make the Kong's views publicly known.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'm not sure what I think about May's speech with a nod to end liberal interventionism.

My views are far closer to Blair's and Osborne's in the UK aiming to shape the world around us, rather than isolationist.

I agree on that on the latter part.

Dropping bombs on people until they agree to adopt our systems of governance has not actually proved to be a very successful strategy in recent years.

Indeed, we need to do more than that.

One of my major critcisms of George W Bush was he said America didn't do nation building, he was wrong, America helped build West Germany and Japan into successful nations

And we built America.

If the US and UK, and others, don't shape the world around us: China and Russia will.

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

Jobabob said:

rcs1000 said:

chestnut said:

rcs1000 said:

chestnut said:

rcs1000 said:

chestnut said:

rcs1000 said:

"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT

That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.

We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.

You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.

The playing field isn't level.

So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.

It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.

Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.

Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.

I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.

It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.

Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.

Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.

Allowing people to make their own decisions, which affect only themselves, is not wrong.

Surely you're not arguing for the complete abolition of food standards ?

That is the reductio ad absurdum argument. No one is saying there should not be any standards. But taking the logical fallacy to its other extreme we would ban everything that was considered in any way harmful starting with alcohol.

Mortimer said:

Surprise surprise, Miliband prefers Merkel to May..

The virtue signaller's virtue signaller.

The threat to plain English is greater than even I feared.

Jobabob said:

Mortimer said:

Surprise surprise, Miliband prefers Merkel to May..

The virtue signaller's virtue signaller.

The threat to plain English is greater than even I feared.

I never quite realised just how wonkish his communication was. A total vote turn off.

Jobabob said:

Mortimer said:

Surprise surprise, Miliband prefers Merkel to May..

The virtue signaller's virtue signaller.

The threat to plain English is greater than even I feared.

I can't believe that preferring one political leader over another is now 'virtue signalling'. People may as well state 'virtue signalling' is anything I disagree with.

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'm not sure what I think about May's speech with a nod to end liberal interventionism.

My views are far closer to Blair's and Osborne's in the UK aiming to shape the world around us, rather than isolationist.

Didn't May vote for the Iraq war, bombing Libya and bombing Syria? While the LDs opposed them?

Am I suffering from alternative facts, or is she?

Perhaps she's changed her view after said events?

Pity that she and her Republican fanboys did't think a little deeper before going all liberal interventionism on the Middle East.

Hindsight and all that....

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/824751114537017344

Black_Rook said:

rcs1000 said:

Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.

I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.

Would you advocate that the UK saves itself the bother of having to negotiate free trade agreements by simply declaring a policy of unilateral free trade with the entire globe? Would the advantages of such an approach to consumers and even to businesses, outweigh the disadvantages?

These are genuine questions - I've read opinions for and against such a radical approach, and am undecided. For example, I appreciate that manufacturers might find themselves competing with both cheap foreign imports and asymmetric barriers to exporting, but on the other hand they would have access to tariff-free supplies of all materials - and consumers would surely benefit from tariff-free imports, especially of food, from the rest of the world outside of the EU customs union?

Tariffs are paid for by the country placing them: they are a tax and are paid for by the consumers and producer of that country. Their appeal is emotional rather than economic. For example, Trump's 20% tariff would be paid for by the American consumer buying the good, not the Mexican producer making it. But the American consumer hears "20% tariff against Mexico!" and feels warm and fuzzy...at least until they see the prices.

Even if country x places tariffs against you, it is still to your advantage to not reciprocate. But because of the emotional appeal to the electorate this is politically difficult. It requires a strong leadership with economic good sense, which is pretty rare. Singapore pulled it off. and (if memory serves) has a tariff-free environment. Hopefully the UK will do likewise, but given Hannan's recent characterisation of tariffs as income (Jesus wept), it may not.

So yes, I would advocate that the UK saves itself the bother of having to negotiate free trade agreements by simply declaring a policy of unilateral free trade with the entire globe.

I can see we've had a comradely debate about food standards while I've been lollygagging.

Further to the posts on the wheezing national grid, I can inform the panel that the demand has eased, but inexplicably, the Frogs are stealing our electricity. Don't anyone tell the Express.

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'm not sure what I think about May's speech with a nod to end liberal interventionism.

My views are far closer to Blair's and Osborne's in the UK aiming to shape the world around us, rather than isolationist.

Didn't May vote for the Iraq war, bombing Libya and bombing Syria? While the LDs opposed them?

Am I suffering from alternative facts, or is she?

Perhaps she's changed her view after said events?

Pity that she and her Republican fanboys did't think a little deeper before going all liberal interventionism on the Middle East.

Hindsight and all that....

Some don't need the crutch of hindsight..

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmmm

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.

Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.

However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.

They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/theresa-may-preparing-abandon-plans-british-bill-rights-sources/

Once free of the ECJ we don't need a bill of rights and we've done without one for a millennium . Seems logical.

Nah, what we've done is partly codified parts of the constitution and left swathes of it unwritten.

We need to ensure of all it is written down.

Just remember prior to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the grounds for the Monarch granting/denying an early general election was based on a letter to The Times in the 50s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles

Best careful what you wish for. I have no faith that the great and the good who would write our nice new constitution would have the best interests of the public at heart. Nor that they would have the foresight to construct something that would prove flexible and adaptable enough to deal with a rapidly changing world.

TheScreamingEagles said:

MTimT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmmm

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.

Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.

However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.

They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/theresa-may-preparing-abandon-plans-british-bill-rights-sources/

Once free of the ECJ we don't need a bill of rights and we've done without one for a millennium . Seems logical.

Nah, what we've done is partly codified parts of the constitution and left swathes of it unwritten.

We need to ensure of all it is written down.

Just remember prior to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the grounds for the Monarch granting/denying an early general election was based on a letter to The Times in the 50s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles

TSE I know you are a lawyer, but you don't sound like one from the British Common Law tradition - you sound more like Hammurabi or Napolean.

The more you write down, the more inflexible you get, and the more you lose.

Comparing me to a Frenchman is a low blow.

In fact that's that's the most gratuitous insult I've ever received on PB.

Whilst I understand your viewpoint, and indeed support the principle, my issue is that we've started to codify things, we should finish the job, otherwise we'll have more botch jobs like when Blair tried to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.

And Blair read Jurisprudence and was a QC.

Blair wasn't a QC

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MTimT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmmm

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.

Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.

However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.

They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/theresa-may-preparing-abandon-plans-british-bill-rights-sources/

Once free of the ECJ we don't need a bill of rights and we've done without one for a millennium . Seems logical.

Nah, what we've done is partly codified parts of the constitution and left swathes of it unwritten.

We need to ensure of all it is written down.

Just remember prior to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the grounds for the Monarch granting/denying an early general election was based on a letter to The Times in the 50s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles

TSE I know you are a lawyer, but you don't sound like one from the British Common Law tradition - you sound more like Hammurabi or Napolean.

The more you write down, the more inflexible you get, and the more you lose.

Comparing me to a Frenchman is a low blow.

In fact that's that's the most gratuitous insult I've ever received on PB.

Whilst I understand your viewpoint, and indeed support the principle, my issue is that we've started to codify things, we should finish the job, otherwise we'll have more botch jobs like when Blair tried to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.

And Blair read Jurisprudence and was a QC.

Blair wasn't a QC

Ooops, was thinking of Cherie.

Jobabob said:

Show me your rationale for flooding the market with shit processed food with sod all nutritional value.

Because some of the "shit processed food with sod all nutritional value" isn't shit and does have some nutritional value. A basic McDonalds/BurgerKing burger has been 99p for what, nearly 20 years now? It'll never appear on a Jamie Oliver Sunday morning twat show where nice people think cooking in pastel clothing is entertainment. But it's cheap, quick and takes the edge off a cold winter's morning.

MonikerDiCanio said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Casino_Royale said:

I'm not sure what I think about May's speech with a nod to end liberal interventionism.

My views are far closer to Blair's and Osborne's in the UK aiming to shape the world around us, rather than isolationist.

Didn't May vote for the Iraq war, bombing Libya and bombing Syria? While the LDs opposed them?

Am I suffering from alternative facts, or is she?

You learn the most from your mistakes as you've no doubt discovered in your practice.

Some say a wise man learns from his mistakes. I say that a really wise person learns from observing others mistakes, and historical mistakes. We do not need to start with a blank sheet of paper.

Richard_Tyndall said:

viewcode said:

Black_Rook said:

rcs1000 said:

Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.

I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.

Would you advocate that the UK saves itself the bother of having to negotiate free trade agreements by simply declaring a policy of unilateral free trade with the entire globe? Would the advantages of such an approach to consumers and even to businesses, outweigh the disadvantages?

These are genuine questions - I've read opinions for and against such a radical approach, and am undecided. For example, I appreciate that manufacturers might find themselves competing with both cheap foreign imports and asymmetric barriers to exporting, but on the other hand they would have access to tariff-free supplies of all materials - and consumers would surely benefit from tariff-free imports, especially of food, from the rest of the world outside of the EU customs union?

Tariffs are paid for by the country placing them: they are a tax and are paid for by the consumers and producer of that country. Their appeal is emotional rather than economic. For example, Trump's 20% tariff would be paid for by the American consumer buying the good, not the Mexican producer making it. But the American consumer hears "20% tariff against Mexico!" and feels warm and fuzzy...at least until they see the prices.

Even if country x places tariffs against you, it is still to your advantage to not reciprocate. But because of the emotional appeal to the electorate this is politically difficult. It requires a strong leadership with economic good sense, which is pretty rare. Singapore pulled it off. and (if memory serves) has a tariff-free environment. Hopefully the UK will do likewise, but given Hannan's recent characterisation of tariffs as income (Jesus wept), it may not.

So yes, I would advocate that the UK saves itself the bother of having to negotiate free trade agreements by simply declaring a policy of unilateral free trade with the entire globe.

An excellent post.

Thank you

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TGOHF said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmmm

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest

Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.

Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.

However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.

They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/theresa-may-preparing-abandon-plans-british-bill-rights-sources/

Once free of the ECJ we don't need a bill of rights and we've done without one for a millennium . Seems logical.

Nah, what we've done is partly codified parts of the constitution and left swathes of it unwritten.

We need to ensure of all it is written down.

Just remember prior to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the grounds for the Monarch granting/denying an early general election was based on a letter to The Times in the 50s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascelles_Principles

No they weren't. It was just that a letter to the Times was chosen as a vehicle to make the Kong's views publicly known.

The Kong???

Luckyguy1983 said:

Tykejohnno said:

Boris Johnson signals shift in UK policy on Syria's Assad

Foreign secretary says UK accepts Syrian leader should be allowed to run for re-election in event of peace deal

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/26/boris-johnson-signals-shift-in-uk-policy-on-syria-bashar-al-assad

Hahahahahahah

Is he calling on people to demonstrate in support outside the Russian embassy yet?

SNP hold Killie East

SNP 1461
Lab 881
Con 602
Libertarian 53

FrancisUrquhart said:

My 'repulsive' university tutor offered me a top degree if I slept with him, says Labour feminist firebrand Harriet Harman

She said her course tutor, Professor T V Sathyamurthy, told her she was a borderline candidate and would either obtain an upper or lower second – a 2:1 or 2:2.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4162044/Harriet-Harman-accuses-professor-sex-bribe.html

Don't read the comment section if easily offended ;-)

FrancisUrquhart said:

My 'repulsive' university tutor offered me a top degree if I slept with him, says Labour feminist firebrand Harriet Harman

She said her course tutor, Professor T V Sathyamurthy, told her she was a borderline candidate and would either obtain an upper or lower second – a 2:1 or 2:2.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4162044/Harriet-Harman-accuses-professor-sex-bribe.html

I doubt it.

Tykejohnno said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

My 'repulsive' university tutor offered me a top degree if I slept with him, says Labour feminist firebrand Harriet Harman

She said her course tutor, Professor T V Sathyamurthy, told her she was a borderline candidate and would either obtain an upper or lower second – a 2:1 or 2:2.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4162044/Harriet-Harman-accuses-professor-sex-bribe.html

Don't read the comment section if easily offended ;-)

As a young post-doc I had a student approach me in the pub upon when she offered me a good time in return for a good grade on the "module" I was teaching that term...in addition to obviously been a professional about such an approach, what she failed to notice was future Mrs urquhart having returned from the loos and standing right behind her!

williamglenn said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Tykejohnno said:

Boris Johnson signals shift in UK policy on Syria's Assad

Foreign secretary says UK accepts Syrian leader should be allowed to run for re-election in event of peace deal

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/26/boris-johnson-signals-shift-in-uk-policy-on-syria-bashar-al-assad

Hahahahahahah

Is he calling on people to demonstrate in support outside the Russian embassy yet?

I was accused of being a Russian troll by PB's great and good for expressing exactly Boris's current statements.

No apology necessary chaps.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Tykejohnno said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

My 'repulsive' university tutor offered me a top degree if I slept with him, says Labour feminist firebrand Harriet Harman

She said her course tutor, Professor T V Sathyamurthy, told her she was a borderline candidate and would either obtain an upper or lower second – a 2:1 or 2:2.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4162044/Harriet-Harman-accuses-professor-sex-bribe.html

Don't read the comment section if easily offended ;-)

As a young post-doc I had a student approach me in the pub upon when she offered me a good time in return for a good grade on the "module" I was teaching that term...in addition to obviously been a professional about such an approach, what she failed to notice was future Mrs urquhart having returned from the loos and standing right behind her!

They say between 2 it's great, but between 3 it's incredible. You nearly got to find out!

FrancisUrquhart said:

Tykejohnno said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

My 'repulsive' university tutor offered me a top degree if I slept with him, says Labour feminist firebrand Harriet Harman

She said her course tutor, Professor T V Sathyamurthy, told her she was a borderline candidate and would either obtain an upper or lower second – a 2:1 or 2:2.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4162044/Harriet-Harman-accuses-professor-sex-bribe.html

Don't read the comment section if easily offended ;-)

As a young post-doc I had a student approach me in the pub upon when she offered me a good time in return for a good grade on the "module" I was teaching that term...in addition to obviously been a professional about such an approach, what she failed to notice was future Mrs urquhart having returned from the loos and standing right behind her!

I hope you said "Whoot! Threesome!"

John_M said:

I can see we've had a comradely debate about food standards while I've been lollygagging.

Further to the posts on the wheezing national grid, I can inform the panel that the demand has eased, but inexplicably, the Frogs are stealing our electricity. Don't anyone tell the Express.

I was bemused by that. I thought the connector only worked one way with us importing nuclear generated electricity from France. It is interesting if it now works in both directions.

Tykejohnno said:

Tim_B said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Tykejohnno said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

My 'repulsive' university tutor offered me a top degree if I slept with him, says Labour feminist firebrand Harriet Harman

She said her course tutor, Professor T V Sathyamurthy, told her she was a borderline candidate and would either obtain an upper or lower second – a 2:1 or 2:2.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4162044/Harriet-Harman-accuses-professor-sex-bribe.html

Don't read the comment section if easily offended ;-)

As a young post-doc I had a student approach me in the pub upon when she offered me a good time in return for a good grade on the "module" I was teaching that term...in addition to obviously been a professional about such an approach, what she failed to notice was future Mrs urquhart having returned from the loos and standing right behind her!

They say between 2 it's great, but between 3 it's incredible. You nearly got to find out!

How do we know he didn't ;-)

Benefit of the doubt - I always think pure thoughts.

HYUFD said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Kilmarnock East & Hurlford (East Ayshire) result:
SNP: 48.7% (+2.1)
LAB: 29.4% (-16.6)
CON: 20.1% (+12.7)
LBT: 1.8% (+1.8)

Another Tory surge north of the border!

People moving to Tory from SLab. In Kilmarnock. They are utterly effed in May. Better stock up on the popcorn to watch them getting horsed out of Glasgow CC.

DavidL said:

John_M said:

I can see we've had a comradely debate about food standards while I've been lollygagging.

Further to the posts on the wheezing national grid, I can inform the panel that the demand has eased, but inexplicably, the Frogs are stealing our electricity. Don't anyone tell the Express.

I was bemused by that. I thought the connector only worked one way with us importing nuclear generated electricity from France. It is interesting if it now works in both directions.

Arbitrage?

@Richard Tyndall
That is the reductio ad absurdum argument. No one is saying there should not be any standards. But taking the logical fallacy to its other extreme we would ban everything that was considered in any way harmful starting with alcohol

Precisely my point; both reductio are silly. But I would argue that modern society is sufficiently complex that the asymmetry in information between a specialist manufacturer and the average consumer demands regulation. The real argument lies somewhere in the middle.
While I have libertarian sympathies - I would legalise (with regulation) the supply of most recreational drugs for example - libertarian dogma often just seems silly

Blue_rog said:

rcs1000 said:

Blue_rog said:

O/T I've had a couple of thoughts about food costs.

There are a number of systems that kick in when someone is classified as 'long term unemployed'. A lot of these systems require the unemployed person to attend schemes and programs where attendance is mandatory. Why not add one that covers food purchasing, healthy nutrition, and meal preparation and planning? This would educate in really practical skills and on completion a free slow cooker would be far better than any certificate

This may sound patronising but having gone through a number of very lean years, I know the value of knowing how to cook tasty nutritious food on a limited budget and having to watch fuel costs.

Risotto. It's a one pound meal that can be absolutely delicious.

Absolutely! And most pasta meals (something derived from peasant meals) are quick and easy to prepare and taste delicious. Also nutritionally sound and healthy if prepared from scratch. A pasta sauce should take no longer to prepare than the time it takes to cook the (dried) pasta!

Neither pasta nor risotto are nutritious meals.

isam said:

Ted Malloch absolutely hilarious on this week!

He's the new US ambassador to the EU who hates it ;-)

isam said:

Ted Malloch absolutely hilarious on this week!

Milking the spotlight for all it's worth while he can still get away with tipping himself for jobs in the Trump administration.

Fillon says he'll pull out if he's placed under investigation over payments to his wife, which presumably means he's very confident he's safe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/newt-gingrich-margaret-thatcher-is-the-real-model-for-the-trump-presidency/2017/01/26/b8930e72-e407-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html

Newt Gingrich: Margaret Thatcher is the real model for the Trump presidency

Trump’s inaugural address last Friday had the directness and confrontational tone of a Thatcher speech.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Blue_rog said:

rcs1000 said:

Blue_rog said:

O/T I've had a couple of thoughts about food costs.

There are a number of systems that kick in when someone is classified as 'long term unemployed'. A lot of these systems require the unemployed person to attend schemes and programs where attendance is mandatory. Why not add one that covers food purchasing, healthy nutrition, and meal preparation and planning? This would educate in really practical skills and on completion a free slow cooker would be far better than any certificate

This may sound patronising but having gone through a number of very lean years, I know the value of knowing how to cook tasty nutritious food on a limited budget and having to watch fuel costs.

Risotto. It's a one pound meal that can be absolutely delicious.

Absolutely! And most pasta meals (something derived from peasant meals) are quick and easy to prepare and taste delicious. Also nutritionally sound and healthy if prepared from scratch. A pasta sauce should take no longer to prepare than the time it takes to cook the (dried) pasta!

Neither pasta nor risotto are nutritious meals.

Yet the Italians have the second longest life expectancies in Europe, after Spain.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Blue_rog said:

rcs1000 said:

Blue_rog said:

O/T I've had a couple of thoughts about food costs.

There are a number of systems that kick in when someone is classified as 'long term unemployed'. A lot of these systems require the unemployed person to attend schemes and programs where attendance is mandatory. Why not add one that covers food purchasing, healthy nutrition, and meal preparation and planning? This would educate in really practical skills and on completion a free slow cooker would be far better than any certificate

This may sound patronising but having gone through a number of very lean years, I know the value of knowing how to cook tasty nutritious food on a limited budget and having to watch fuel costs.

Risotto. It's a one pound meal that can be absolutely delicious.

Absolutely! And most pasta meals (something derived from peasant meals) are quick and easy to prepare and taste delicious. Also nutritionally sound and healthy if prepared from scratch. A pasta sauce should take no longer to prepare than the time it takes to cook the (dried) pasta!

Neither pasta nor risotto are nutritious meals.

Yet the Italians have the second longest life expectancies in Europe, after Spain.

It's the olive oil and all that red wine wot does it!