YouGov finds little support for re-entering the Afghan war – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Nando’s is overpriced shite.-2
-
“Went on fire”, as they used to say in Glasgow.Carnyx said:
It does already happen all the time, though. The owner lets a building rot till it begins to fall on people's heads, or if in a hurry some local ned will carry out a bit of urban improvement.pigeon said:
The rationale for letting the place go to rack and ruin is interesting, but it won't happen. Besides the fact that it would likely require primary legislation to override the existing protections afforded this specific building, stripping an edifice of protection and allowing it to fall into ruin because it is unfashionable and/or expensive to maintain would be hugely controversial. Once you allow one listed building to be abandoned, any landowner, community or organisation burdened with maintaining others can also appeal to be excused the trouble.IshmaelZ said:
They say the Lion and the Lizard keepCarnyx said:In other Scottish news - this will interest a number of PBers given the recent discvussion of Rum
:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/kinloch-castle-curated-decay-ruin-scotland
The Courts where Jamshýd gloried and drank deep:
And Bahrám, that great Hunter--the Wild Ass
Stamps o'er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.
But elf n safety: it will take the place centuries to fall down, and it'll be an insurance nightmare while it does.0 -
Why, Mr Gove?
British exporters have been hit harder by Brexit because they faced border checks from 1 January on shipments to the EU, while Irish and EU exporters to Britain have benefited from a phased in approach the UK government opted for over a 12-month transition period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/17/exports-from-ireland-to-great-britain-soar-in-post-brexit-trade-imbalance?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other0 -
Those weeks shall feel like decades.Stuartinromford said:
Yes, but if the problem is the Pingdemic, that's pretty much over now and things will get back to normal over the next couple of weeks.kle4 said:
I didn't care when KFC experienced trouble, but this is far more serious.Scott_xP said:More like Nandon'ts, amiright?
BBC News - Nando's shuts restaurants as it runs short of supplies
https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1427718254567510022
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58249337
Let's see.1 -
I'm too polite to even comment on that.Sandpit said:
“Went on fire”, as they used to say in Glasgow.Carnyx said:
It does already happen all the time, though. The owner lets a building rot till it begins to fall on people's heads, or if in a hurry some local ned will carry out a bit of urban improvement.pigeon said:
The rationale for letting the place go to rack and ruin is interesting, but it won't happen. Besides the fact that it would likely require primary legislation to override the existing protections afforded this specific building, stripping an edifice of protection and allowing it to fall into ruin because it is unfashionable and/or expensive to maintain would be hugely controversial. Once you allow one listed building to be abandoned, any landowner, community or organisation burdened with maintaining others can also appeal to be excused the trouble.IshmaelZ said:
They say the Lion and the Lizard keepCarnyx said:In other Scottish news - this will interest a number of PBers given the recent discvussion of Rum
:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/kinloch-castle-curated-decay-ruin-scotland
The Courts where Jamshýd gloried and drank deep:
And Bahrám, that great Hunter--the Wild Ass
Stamps o'er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.
But elf n safety: it will take the place centuries to fall down, and it'll be an insurance nightmare while it does.0 -
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.pigeon said:
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.Cyclefree said:
And they're right to think that.Casino_Royale said:Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.0 -
Not at all sure it would work in this case now. First of all the property in question is owned by a public body; secondly, it would be decidedly risky for one of the locals to indulge in a spot of creative redevelopment by fire. It's not like there would be a lengthy list of suspects in any subsequent police investigation.Carnyx said:
It does already happen all the time, though. The owner lets a building rot till it begins to fall on people's heads, or if in a hurry some local ned will carry out a bit of urban improvement.pigeon said:
The rationale for letting the place go to rack and ruin is interesting, but it won't happen. Besides the fact that it would likely require primary legislation to override the existing protections afforded this specific building, stripping an edifice of protection and allowing it to fall into ruin because it is unfashionable and/or expensive to maintain would be hugely controversial. Once you allow one listed building to be abandoned, any landowner, community or organisation burdened with maintaining others can also appeal to be excused the trouble.IshmaelZ said:
They say the Lion and the Lizard keepCarnyx said:In other Scottish news - this will interest a number of PBers given the recent discvussion of Rum
:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/kinloch-castle-curated-decay-ruin-scotland
The Courts where Jamshýd gloried and drank deep:
And Bahrám, that great Hunter--the Wild Ass
Stamps o'er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.
But elf n safety: it will take the place centuries to fall down, and it'll be an insurance nightmare while it does.2 -
But, Soviet Communism in its heyday was as powerful as Islamism. Their leaders had the will to power, the belief they had the right to rule. That will suddenly vanished.stodge said:Evening all
For now, superficially, it appears the Taliban are "playing nice" in Kabul.
Well, yes - after all, many reports from Berlin in 1945 said the first wave of Russian troops, the combat soldiers, were correct in their dealings with the German population. The rapes and pillage began with the follow-up and support troops.
How things will be once the world's eyes are elsewhere remains to be seen.
From 1945-89, we maintained a large defensive glacis against a seemingly powerful military threat just two hours from the Rhine. We understood that - we knew what might and perhaps would happen if deterrence failed and war broke out in Central Europe. The options were victory, surrender or annihilation.
Islamic fundamentalism isn't Soviet Communism. In the end, ultimately, the Soviet system proved as brittle as the recently collapsed Afghan Government - with a few exceptions (the Securitate in Romania), no one was prepared to fight and die for Marxism in East Berlin, Prague or Budapest in 1989.
That's the difference between ideology and faith - the latter is so much more powerful. How do you fight or reason with a zealot? You can't - if their end goal is the conversion of your society to one which matches theirs, your options are similarly limited. The problem is the reach of faith is so much greater than it was before. The Internet radicalises individuals far from any actual battlefields.
I don't have any answers - I know we are not the Roman Empire. We may feel comfortable with a Pax Americana but it was never going to work even after 1989. Garrisoning far off countries in an attempt to keep the barbarian from the gate is old thinking unfit for the digital age.0 -
Surely the first consequence is the loss of the ability to live?IshmaelZ said:
They will if they know the consequences for women of living outwith Sharia law.Floater said:https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1427649038397100033
"Taliban spokesperson- Our women are Muslims and they'll be happy to live within Sharia law"
Of course they are ........
I think it was Lord Vetinari who recruited a thief as a spy. He became a spy of his own free will. The alternative was to choose of his own free will to be flung into the scorpion pit.1 -
NEW: Police are currently dealing with a group of people refusing to leave the grounds of Edinburgh Castle.
A live stream posted on social media by one of the group claims they've "seized the building".
Police Scotland has confirmed officers are speaking to those involved.
https://twitter.com/imhopewebb/status/1427722229484249093
There used to be a squad of RMP billeted in the Castle. This might not end well0 -
Are you sure you're not mixing that up with the DfE's new teacher recruitment plan?ydoethur said:
Surely the first consequence is the loss of the ability to live?IshmaelZ said:
They will if they know the consequences for women of living outwith Sharia law.Floater said:https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1427649038397100033
"Taliban spokesperson- Our women are Muslims and they'll be happy to live within Sharia law"
Of course they are ........
I think it was Lord Vetinari who recruited a thief as a spy. He became a spy of his own free will. The alternative was to choose of his own free will to be flung into the scorpion pit.1 -
Will the taliban be present at COP26 ?Taz said:
I’m sure, given their commitment to net zero, the Chinese will pass on that.rottenborough said:
"Afghanistan has vast mineral deposits, including coal, copper and iron ore, talc, lithium and uranium, as well as gold, precious stones, oil and gas."DavidL said:China will end up buying up Afghanistan. The process has already started, hence the Taleban’s indifference to the genocide of the Uighers. It is chump change for the Chinese. Only the Pakistanis will be cross.
Foreign Policy magazine.
Tbh living with 6th century values is probably quite low carbon0 -
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.Cyclefree said:
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.pigeon said:
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.Cyclefree said:
And they're right to think that.Casino_Royale said:Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.4 -
The Chinese are already building the Pakistan part. An offshoot to Afghanistan wouldn't be too big an addition.pigeon said:
The Chinese built a railway to Lhasa. They could extend a couple of routes across the Afghan-Pak border if they were so minded, I'm sure.rcs1000 said:
Have you looked at Google Maps?pigeon said:
Upgrade the Pakistani rail network and build a couple of branches into Afghanistan. The goods can all be hauled to Karachi. Job done.rcs1000 said:
Well, first they destroyed their export industry via production of fentanyl, then they offer to go in and help by building some mines.DavidL said:China will end up buying up Afghanistan. The process has already started, hence the Taleban’s indifference to the genocide of the Uighers. It is chump change for the Chinese. Only the Pakistanis will be cross.
Of course, while there is a theoretical land path between Afghanistan and China, getting material out will be extremely expensive - certainly 5-6x more expensive than simply shipping stuff from Africa (which the Chinese have already bought up).
OTOH your remarks about Mongolia's travails are, admittedly, instructive.
https://multimedia.scmp.com/news/china/article/One-Belt-One-Road/pakistan.html0 -
Well it looks like the “Give the pensioners their 8%” campaign has started in earnest - with some ridiculously overblown language:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/retirees-lose-11000-state-pension-triple-lock-fiddle/
“Britons would be nearly £12,000 worse off by the time they reach age 85 if Chancellor Rishi Sunak ditches traditional metrics used in the “triple lock” policy.
“However, the Chancellor is considering fiddling the figures to avoid using skewed economic data. For a second month running, the ONS published a metric for "underlying" earnings data, which stripped out the abnormal effects of the pandemic. The lower figure was between a range of 3.5pc to 4.9pc.
“Using this lower “underlying” figure would only increase the state pension by £327 and save the taxpayer £3.5bn, according to calculations from AJ Bell, the stockbroker.
“However, it would deny 12.4 million state pensioners a historical boost and someone turning 66 this year would be £11,866 out of pocket by age 85.”1 -
Poor Afghan soldiers: apparently they don't want to shoot people or get shot at.
It's ironic that that's what the world needs more of.0 -
I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."1 -
I see they arrested someone for the fire in the 'Polish' Catholic chapel in Partick. Likely a loony, but we'll see..Carnyx said:
I'm too polite to even comment on that.Sandpit said:
“Went on fire”, as they used to say in Glasgow.Carnyx said:
It does already happen all the time, though. The owner lets a building rot till it begins to fall on people's heads, or if in a hurry some local ned will carry out a bit of urban improvement.pigeon said:
The rationale for letting the place go to rack and ruin is interesting, but it won't happen. Besides the fact that it would likely require primary legislation to override the existing protections afforded this specific building, stripping an edifice of protection and allowing it to fall into ruin because it is unfashionable and/or expensive to maintain would be hugely controversial. Once you allow one listed building to be abandoned, any landowner, community or organisation burdened with maintaining others can also appeal to be excused the trouble.IshmaelZ said:
They say the Lion and the Lizard keepCarnyx said:In other Scottish news - this will interest a number of PBers given the recent discvussion of Rum
:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/kinloch-castle-curated-decay-ruin-scotland
The Courts where Jamshýd gloried and drank deep:
And Bahrám, that great Hunter--the Wild Ass
Stamps o'er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.
But elf n safety: it will take the place centuries to fall down, and it'll be an insurance nightmare while it does.0 -
Yes. And look at Han China. Their self belief has nothing to do with religion - except as a quasi-mystical exceptionalism - but they’ve been around for 3000 years, for much of that time they’ve been the biggest power in the world, and now they rise to ascendancy again. Much more powerful than IslamSean_F said:
But, Soviet Communism in its heyday was as powerful as Islamism. Their leaders had the will to power, the belief they had the right to rule. That will suddenly vanished.stodge said:Evening all
For now, superficially, it appears the Taliban are "playing nice" in Kabul.
Well, yes - after all, many reports from Berlin in 1945 said the first wave of Russian troops, the combat soldiers, were correct in their dealings with the German population. The rapes and pillage began with the follow-up and support troops.
How things will be once the world's eyes are elsewhere remains to be seen.
From 1945-89, we maintained a large defensive glacis against a seemingly powerful military threat just two hours from the Rhine. We understood that - we knew what might and perhaps would happen if deterrence failed and war broke out in Central Europe. The options were victory, surrender or annihilation.
Islamic fundamentalism isn't Soviet Communism. In the end, ultimately, the Soviet system proved as brittle as the recently collapsed Afghan Government - with a few exceptions (the Securitate in Romania), no one was prepared to fight and die for Marxism in East Berlin, Prague or Budapest in 1989.
That's the difference between ideology and faith - the latter is so much more powerful. How do you fight or reason with a zealot? You can't - if their end goal is the conversion of your society to one which matches theirs, your options are similarly limited. The problem is the reach of faith is so much greater than it was before. The Internet radicalises individuals far from any actual battlefields.
I don't have any answers - I know we are not the Roman Empire. We may feel comfortable with a Pax Americana but it was never going to work even after 1989. Garrisoning far off countries in an attempt to keep the barbarian from the gate is old thinking unfit for the digital age.
Cultural self confidence is the key. God is one route to it, but there are others. England and then Britain had it in spades from about 1680-18902 -
Why would they go to Afghanistan to plan attacks on the US, when they could go to any number of friendly Islamic countries with much better air links?Cyclefree said:
And they're right to think that.Casino_Royale said:Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
Afghanistan has no ability to export terror. It has no money and no functioning economy.
Now, sure, it has the ability to be a place where terrorists hide. If I'd just ordered a terrorist attack, it's the kind of place it would be easy to hide in. But it's a place you'd hide in because there's no infrastructure. It's hard to find you in a village in the middle of the mountains in the middle of nowhere. But it's equally hard to get decent reliable Internet access. And it's very far from anyone who has actual money to pay for a terrorist attack.
Will there be Jihadi training camps in the Afghan desert? Probably. But there are camps in Pakistan and Yemen and Syria today. And those places are a hell of a lot easier to get to than Afghanistan.1 -
Demographics is destiny.pigeon said:
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.Cyclefree said:
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.pigeon said:
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.Cyclefree said:
And they're right to think that.Casino_Royale said:Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.
If it's any consolation, China's demographics soon start looking worse than ours.0 -
Do we know anything yet about how Labour and the SNP plan to respond to the Treasury's apparent manoeuvring on this subject? The temptation to protest the plight of the poor neglected old folk (whom, as well all know, never receive any consideration in the making of public policy) must be enormous.Sandpit said:Well it looks like the “Give the pensioners their 8%” campaign has started in earnest - with some ridiculously overblown language:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/retirees-lose-11000-state-pension-triple-lock-fiddle/
“Britons would be nearly £12,000 worse off by the time they reach age 85 if Chancellor Rishi Sunak ditches traditional metrics used in the “triple lock” policy.
“However, the Chancellor is considering fiddling the figures to avoid using skewed economic data. For a second month running, the ONS published a metric for "underlying" earnings data, which stripped out the abnormal effects of the pandemic. The lower figure was between a range of 3.5pc to 4.9pc.
“Using this lower “underlying” figure would only increase the state pension by £327 and save the taxpayer £3.5bn, according to calculations from AJ Bell, the stockbroker.
“However, it would deny 12.4 million state pensioners a historical boost and someone turning 66 this year would be £11,866 out of pocket by age 85.”
That's assuming Johnson doesn't overrule Sunak and insist on the triple lock being applied in full next year, which is a very big assumption indeed...1 -
Not likely to be a bit of Glaswegian urban improvement, mind. The building was (sadly) very much in use for its intended prupose.Theuniondivvie said:
I see they arrested someone for the fire in the 'Polish' Catholic chapel in Partick. Likely a loony, but we'll see..Carnyx said:
I'm too polite to even comment on that.Sandpit said:
“Went on fire”, as they used to say in Glasgow.Carnyx said:
It does already happen all the time, though. The owner lets a building rot till it begins to fall on people's heads, or if in a hurry some local ned will carry out a bit of urban improvement.pigeon said:
The rationale for letting the place go to rack and ruin is interesting, but it won't happen. Besides the fact that it would likely require primary legislation to override the existing protections afforded this specific building, stripping an edifice of protection and allowing it to fall into ruin because it is unfashionable and/or expensive to maintain would be hugely controversial. Once you allow one listed building to be abandoned, any landowner, community or organisation burdened with maintaining others can also appeal to be excused the trouble.IshmaelZ said:
They say the Lion and the Lizard keepCarnyx said:In other Scottish news - this will interest a number of PBers given the recent discvussion of Rum
:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/17/kinloch-castle-curated-decay-ruin-scotland
The Courts where Jamshýd gloried and drank deep:
And Bahrám, that great Hunter--the Wild Ass
Stamps o'er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.
But elf n safety: it will take the place centuries to fall down, and it'll be an insurance nightmare while it does.0 -
Poor Magna didn’t die in vain…
Unity News Network (UNN)
@UnityNewsNet
BREAKING NEWS: Protestors are claiming to have "seized" Edinburgh Castle after a gathering of around 30 stormed the entrance.
One said: "We are using article 61 of the Magna Carta. We have had enough. The people of Scotland have had enough and today we claim our power back."0 -
Why do it from there? Well, to taunt the US, for one thing. To rub its nose in its weakness. To destabilise a President. To cause dissension within its political system. And which powers now very interested in Afghanistan might want to do that?rcs1000 said:
Why would they go to Afghanistan to plan attacks on the US, when they could go to any number of friendly Islamic countries with much better air links?Cyclefree said:
And they're right to think that.Casino_Royale said:Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
Afghanistan has no ability to export terror. It has no money and no functioning economy.
Now, sure, it has the ability to be a place where terrorists hide. If I'd just ordered a terrorist attack, it's the kind of place it would be easy to hide in. But it's a place you'd hide in because there's no infrastructure. It's hard to find you in a village in the middle of the mountains in the middle of nowhere. But it's equally hard to get decent reliable Internet access. And it's very far from anyone who has actual money to pay for a terrorist attack.
Will there be Jihadi training camps in the Afghan desert? Probably. But there are camps in Pakistan and Yemen and Syria today. And those places are a hell of a lot easier to get to than Afghanistan.
I can think of two.
0 -
Support for triple lock is in the SNP Manifesto, I believe. But it is not a devolved area of policy, any more than the State Pension is, so all they can do is ask Mr Johnson nicely.pigeon said:
Do we know anything yet about how Labour and the SNP plan to respond to the Treasury's apparent manoeuvring on this subject? The temptation to protest the plight of the poor neglected old folk (whom, as well all know, never receive any consideration in the making of public policy) must be enormous.Sandpit said:Well it looks like the “Give the pensioners their 8%” campaign has started in earnest - with some ridiculously overblown language:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/retirees-lose-11000-state-pension-triple-lock-fiddle/
“Britons would be nearly £12,000 worse off by the time they reach age 85 if Chancellor Rishi Sunak ditches traditional metrics used in the “triple lock” policy.
“However, the Chancellor is considering fiddling the figures to avoid using skewed economic data. For a second month running, the ONS published a metric for "underlying" earnings data, which stripped out the abnormal effects of the pandemic. The lower figure was between a range of 3.5pc to 4.9pc.
“Using this lower “underlying” figure would only increase the state pension by £327 and save the taxpayer £3.5bn, according to calculations from AJ Bell, the stockbroker.
“However, it would deny 12.4 million state pensioners a historical boost and someone turning 66 this year would be £11,866 out of pocket by age 85.”
That's assuming Johnson doesn't overrule Sunak and insist on the triple lock being applied in full next year, which is a very big assumption indeed...0 -
We were discussing that earlier. MUst be lockdown/antivaxxer types who are always going on about Cl 61, no independista would cite M. C.DougSeal said:Poor Magna didn’t die in vain…
Unity News Network (UNN)
@UnityNewsNet
BREAKING NEWS: Protestors are claiming to have "seized" Edinburgh Castle after a gathering of around 30 stormed the entrance.
One said: "We are using article 61 of the Magna Carta. We have had enough. The people of Scotland have had enough and today we claim our power back."1 -
I think it's because the EU needed to increase their number of checks by around 10%, while we needed to double them. Much easier - scale-wise - for them than for us.CarlottaVance said:Why, Mr Gove?
British exporters have been hit harder by Brexit because they faced border checks from 1 January on shipments to the EU, while Irish and EU exporters to Britain have benefited from a phased in approach the UK government opted for over a 12-month transition period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/17/exports-from-ireland-to-great-britain-soar-in-post-brexit-trade-imbalance?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other2 -
The political games around this are going to be hilarious to watch play out. The pandemic has so far led to the opposition parties pretty much falling in line behind the government, but at some point the gloves are going to have to come off and we get back to politics as usual.pigeon said:
Do we know anything yet about how Labour and the SNP plan to respond to the Treasury's apparent manoeuvring on this subject? The temptation to protest the plight of the poor neglected old folk (whom, as well all know, never receive any consideration in the making of public policy) must be enormous.Sandpit said:Well it looks like the “Give the pensioners their 8%” campaign has started in earnest - with some ridiculously overblown language:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/retirees-lose-11000-state-pension-triple-lock-fiddle/
“Britons would be nearly £12,000 worse off by the time they reach age 85 if Chancellor Rishi Sunak ditches traditional metrics used in the “triple lock” policy.
“However, the Chancellor is considering fiddling the figures to avoid using skewed economic data. For a second month running, the ONS published a metric for "underlying" earnings data, which stripped out the abnormal effects of the pandemic. The lower figure was between a range of 3.5pc to 4.9pc.
“Using this lower “underlying” figure would only increase the state pension by £327 and save the taxpayer £3.5bn, according to calculations from AJ Bell, the stockbroker.
“However, it would deny 12.4 million state pensioners a historical boost and someone turning 66 this year would be £11,866 out of pocket by age 85.”
That's assuming Johnson doesn't overrule Sunak and insist on the triple lock being applied in full next year, which is a very big assumption indeed...
There will be a massive Tory rebellion if anything like 8% is the proposal, which is why it’ll be 3.5% or thereabouts.
To put it bluntly, the choice is a massive pensions rise, higher taxes or higher borrowing. The Chancellor isn’t going to want to raise taxes, and wants to see borrrowing on a sharply downward trajectory by the election - so a normal pensions increase it is then.
From a political optics point of view, the 8% figure is clearly an anomaly, and not an accurate estimate in the change of the cost of living in the last 12 months - and the public realise this.
Pensions are not going to be the only line item affected by the pandemic recession and recovery either, they’re just the first big one to have come up.0 -
Suchet's Poirot.rottenborough said:
Owen Jones Rose
@OwenJones84
What TV series is your default comfort watch you always return to? Mine’s This Life. Go!
Blimey. Some of the answers? Great TV shows, but "comfort watch"??2 -
Your comment is hurtful. And, you are right to be hurtful.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Of Trump, one could expect no better. He is, after all, President Pussy Grabber, a man who privately admires the most backward and reactionary ideologies that exist in the world.
Of Biden, one could have expected better, because he professes to be better.
And, you are unfortunately, right. Women and girls will always be thrown under the bus.0 -
Niche post...
Tim Tebow was released by the Jacksonville Jaguars after one preseason game, ending his NFL return https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1427729247666331648/photo/11 -
It's not 1939, I would say, and Britain compared to the US in any case is a flea. The only militaries that will make any significant mark on the world are Russia's, China's, the US's and its NATO aegis, and any pan-European military structure that the UK also wants to be a part of.pigeon said:
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.Cyclefree said:
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.pigeon said:
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.Cyclefree said:
And they're right to think that.Casino_Royale said:Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.0 -
Well, of course, all either of those parties can do is complain because the Conservatives are currently in power at Westminster. The question is, will they? The point being, of course, that it is perfectly possible both to maintain support for the triple lock or some such uprating mechanism in theory, but also to support a one-off correction in practice. Because to give the elderly a substantial pay rise as a direct result of a crisis where almost all of the economic pain has been inflicted on those of working age (especially the young) might be considered a little bit off.Carnyx said:
Support for triple lock is in the SNP Manifesto, I believe. But it is not a devolved area of policy, any more than the State Pension is, so all they can do is ask Mr Johnson nicely.pigeon said:
Do we know anything yet about how Labour and the SNP plan to respond to the Treasury's apparent manoeuvring on this subject? The temptation to protest the plight of the poor neglected old folk (whom, as well all know, never receive any consideration in the making of public policy) must be enormous.Sandpit said:Well it looks like the “Give the pensioners their 8%” campaign has started in earnest - with some ridiculously overblown language:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/retirees-lose-11000-state-pension-triple-lock-fiddle/
“Britons would be nearly £12,000 worse off by the time they reach age 85 if Chancellor Rishi Sunak ditches traditional metrics used in the “triple lock” policy.
“However, the Chancellor is considering fiddling the figures to avoid using skewed economic data. For a second month running, the ONS published a metric for "underlying" earnings data, which stripped out the abnormal effects of the pandemic. The lower figure was between a range of 3.5pc to 4.9pc.
“Using this lower “underlying” figure would only increase the state pension by £327 and save the taxpayer £3.5bn, according to calculations from AJ Bell, the stockbroker.
“However, it would deny 12.4 million state pensioners a historical boost and someone turning 66 this year would be £11,866 out of pocket by age 85.”
That's assuming Johnson doesn't overrule Sunak and insist on the triple lock being applied in full next year, which is a very big assumption indeed...
OTOH, in a straight battle between the interests of the old and the young, is anyone going to be remotely interested in taking the side of the latter?0 -
Brain wormsCarnyx said:
We were discussing that earlier. MUst be lockdown/antivaxxer types who are always going on about Cl 61, no independista would cite M. C.DougSeal said:Poor Magna didn’t die in vain…
Unity News Network (UNN)
@UnityNewsNet
BREAKING NEWS: Protestors are claiming to have "seized" Edinburgh Castle after a gathering of around 30 stormed the entrance.
One said: "We are using article 61 of the Magna Carta. We have had enough. The people of Scotland have had enough and today we claim our power back."
Scotland Against Lockdown
@ScotsNoLockdown
· 2h
Sovereign Scots lay siege to take back Edinburgh Castle under Common Law, to remove and expose the corrupt political & Admiral system, that the free people of Scotland, the U.K. & Commonwealth, have been forced to live under for many years. Pls support Flag of Scotland
https://facebook.com/janie.walsh/0 -
With hindsight, over the last 20 years we should have probably trained up the Afghan Army as a female only fighting force.
It would have seriously fked with the heads of the taliban and dismatled the Afghan patriarchy at the same time.
They would have put up far more of a fight.2 -
"Women and girls will always be thrown under the bus."
Sometimes we should never say always.0 -
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."1 -
As an island, it would still be a good idea to maintain a reasonably substantial navy. The idea that it's not worth the bother because the UK is much smaller than the US could easily be expanded into a more general argument for giving up on everything.WhisperingOracle said:
It's not 1939, I would say, and Britain compared to the US in any case is a flea. The only militaries that will make any significant mark on the world are Russia's, China's, the US's and its NATO aegis, and any pan-European military structure that the UK also wants to be a part of.pigeon said:
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.Cyclefree said:
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.pigeon said:
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.Cyclefree said:
And they're right to think that.Casino_Royale said:Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.1 -
Yeah well - the world should not be like that. I don't see why I should accept that this is the way things are and should be. And I don't frankly see why I should worry about being hurtful to some nice men. Men - even nice ones - don't seem to really care about us, not deep down, not enough to do things differently.Sean_F said:
Your comment is hurtful. And, you are right to be hurtful.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Of Trump, one could expect no better. He is, after all, President Pussy Grabber, a man who privately admires the most backward and reactionary ideologies that exist in the world.
Of Biden, one could have expected better, because he professes to be better.
And, you are unfortunately, right. Women and girls will always be thrown under the bus.
So tonight I feel frankly indifferent about pandering to their amour propre and a little contemptuous of their views.
So I shall wish you all a good night and a pleasant chat amongst yourselves.0 -
The worst feature of modern life is the corrosive cynicism that holds nothing is worth fighting for, one can't do anything good, so just give up in the hope that the end comes after one's passing.pigeon said:
As an island, it would still be a good idea to maintain a reasonably substantial navy. The idea that it's not worth the bother because the UK is much smaller than the US could easily be expanded into a more general argument for giving up on everything.WhisperingOracle said:
It's not 1939, I would say, and Britain compared to the US in any case is a flea. The only militaries that will make any significant mark on the world are Russia's, China's, the US's and its NATO aegis, and any pan-European military structure that the UK also wants to be a part of.pigeon said:
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.Cyclefree said:
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.pigeon said:
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.Cyclefree said:
And they're right to think that.Casino_Royale said:Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.2 -
I think it's a great argument for being in a military structure with our European allies* independently of, and supplementary to, NATO. There, and in our immediate locality, Britain really can make a difference and exert an influence, both with its navy and elsewhere. It's very much parallel to the much greater economic leverage we had as one of the three main powers in Europe, rather than artificially trying to strain across to areas like the pacific , while acting most fundamentally as almost comically junior partner to the US.pigeon said:
As an island, it would still be a good idea to maintain a reasonably substantial navy. The idea that it's not worth the bother because the UK is much smaller than the US could easily be expanded into a more general argument for giving up on everything.WhisperingOracle said:
It's not 1939, I would say, and Britain compared to the US in any case is a flea. The only militaries that will make any significant mark on the world are Russia's, China's, the US's and its NATO aegis, and any pan-European military structure that the UK also wants to be a part of.pigeon said:
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.Cyclefree said:
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.pigeon said:
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.Cyclefree said:
And they're right to think that.Casino_Royale said:Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.0 -
How are women being treated as collateral damage any more than men? In terms of the Western collaborators murdered, they will be overwhelmingly male. They are having said "fuck em" about them just as much as women. But of course, they are not seen as poor and weak and fair like women, so their deaths are not valued the same.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."0 -
IshmaelZ said:
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
This site would be worse off without Cyclefree's articles. She may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but who would deny that she is morally right?9 -
Tediously, I will be the one to point out that there is no the Magna Carta.DougSeal said:Poor Magna didn’t die in vain…
Unity News Network (UNN)
@UnityNewsNet
BREAKING NEWS: Protestors are claiming to have "seized" Edinburgh Castle after a gathering of around 30 stormed the entrance.
One said: "We are using article 61 of the Magna Carta. We have had enough. The people of Scotland have had enough and today we claim our power back."0 -
That’s one of mine!MarqueeMark said:
Suchet's Poirot.rottenborough said:
Owen Jones Rose
@OwenJones84
What TV series is your default comfort watch you always return to? Mine’s This Life. Go!
Blimey. Some of the answers? Great TV shows, but "comfort watch"??
Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes, Midsomer Murders, detectorists… what an old fogey I am.0 -
I used to live above a Nando’s. The doorway to my apartment building was also the backdoor for Nando staff. The bins got emptied 7 days a week but it was never enough so I used to have to hop over the rat traps and chicken carcasses on the way out.tlg86 said:Nando’s is overpriced shite.
Still on the plus side, sometimes you could get stoned enough to forget about that and then it was very convenient having it right there.0 -
Wait a second. You expected better from Handsy Joe? The serial sniffer of children’s hair?Sean_F said:
Your comment is hurtful. And, you are right to be hurtful.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Of Trump, one could expect no better. He is, after all, President Pussy Grabber, a man who privately admires the most backward and reactionary ideologies that exist in the world.
Of Biden, one could have expected better, because he professes to be better.
And, you are unfortunately, right. Women and girls will always be thrown under the bus.0 -
My wife rotates Midsomer Murders, Suchet's Poirot and Columbo!isam said:
That’s one of mine!MarqueeMark said:
Suchet's Poirot.rottenborough said:
Owen Jones Rose
@OwenJones84
What TV series is your default comfort watch you always return to? Mine’s This Life. Go!
Blimey. Some of the answers? Great TV shows, but "comfort watch"??
Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes, Midsomer Murders, detectorists… what an old fogey I am.2 -
Totally uncalled for.IshmaelZ said:
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."6 -
Yesterday
.@GregAbbott_TX is at the Republican Club at Heritage Ranch meeting tonight! https://twitter.com/AbbottCampaign/status/1427422628248227841/video/1
Today
CNN: Texas Governor Greg Abbott has tested positive for Covid-19, according to a statement from his office.0 -
Columbo is another one on the list. Fantasticrcs1000 said:
My wife rotates Midsomer Murders, Suchet's Poirot and Columbo!isam said:
That’s one of mine!MarqueeMark said:
Suchet's Poirot.rottenborough said:
Owen Jones Rose
@OwenJones84
What TV series is your default comfort watch you always return to? Mine’s This Life. Go!
Blimey. Some of the answers? Great TV shows, but "comfort watch"??
Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes, Midsomer Murders, detectorists… what an old fogey I am.4 -
Obviously you are venting, but I'm not sure what response you want from anyone here, given you would regard any response, however sympathetic, nice or even in full agreement, as being mere pandering.Cyclefree said:
Yeah well - the world should not be like that. I don't see why I should accept that this is the way things are and should be. And I don't frankly see why I should worry about being hurtful to some nice men. Men - even nice ones - don't seem to really care about us, not deep down, not enough to do things differently.Sean_F said:
Your comment is hurtful. And, you are right to be hurtful.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Of Trump, one could expect no better. He is, after all, President Pussy Grabber, a man who privately admires the most backward and reactionary ideologies that exist in the world.
Of Biden, one could have expected better, because he professes to be better.
And, you are unfortunately, right. Women and girls will always be thrown under the bus.
So tonight I feel frankly indifferent about pandering to their amour propre and a little contemptuous of their views.
So I shall wish you all a good night and a pleasant chat amongst yourselves.
That isn't arguing you should accept anything, or care about being hurtful to others with that view, no man or woman would think or seek to deny you your opinions I am sure (not successfully at any rate) but I'm somewhat at a loss as to how you think people here should 'do things differently' if words, which is all any of us have, is just pandering to be treated with contempt. That says nothing about how people will choose to respond to that contempt which is on them, and certainly nothing about wider ingrained societal ills, but selfish as it may be for people to care about their own feelings in the face of grander concerns, it will certainly stick in the mind, knowing that truth lies behind every comment you may ever make again.
0 -
BREAKING: @POTUS has spoken to @BorisJohnson this evening about situation in #Afghanistan - pointed line from Number 10 readout is the PM stressing importance of not losing gains of last 20 years. Joe Biden in speech yesterday said nation building was not why US was there https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1427738432332308488/photo/10
-
@Cyclefree is a very respected and excellent contributor and her family have had a very difficult year as have so many othersRobD said:
Totally uncalled for.IshmaelZ said:
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
This forum would be very much the poorer for her leaving and she is worthy of all the support we can give her
I fully understand her despair4 -
This is a tragedy on many, many levels.Aslan said:
How are women being treated as collateral damage any more than men? In terms of the Western collaborators murdered, they will be overwhelmingly male. They are having said "fuck em" about them just as much as women. But of course, they are not seen as poor and weak and fair like women, so their deaths are not valued the same.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
We don't really know what the fate of women in afghanistan, ie the mayor and MP's that have been talking on the news. Maybe they will be subjugated rather than murdered. It isn't good but I would strongly dispute the assumption that their fate is somehow worse than that of the male collaborators as Aslan rightly points out.
Women were central to the story of western intervention in Afghanisan, and by having women MPs etc for 20 years there is a social and cultural legacy that it is hard for the taliban to eradicate.
Nothing changes the fact that the society that we helped build up was unable to defend itself against the taliban; it is just wrong to exclusively blame men for this.
0 -
Am told the current wording of tomorrow's debate when Parliament is recalled is: "That this House has considered the situation in Afghanistan".
Nice and forensic
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/14276307374241013830 -
What? You've just been told that you as a man on PB probably think "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you really think that? If you don't, are you not in the slightest, slightest bit irked by the suggestion that you do? Really? Really really?RobD said:
Totally uncalled for.IshmaelZ said:
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Hannah Arendt thought that Eichmann illustrated the banality of evil. Cyclefree seems to me to be living proof of the banality of banality. I wouldn't usually in a thousand years have the bad manners to say so, but I seriously object to anyone telling me that my reaction to women being hurt is "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you feel differently?
1 -
I used to like a Nandos, but personally they lost me with the Covid tyranny that they bought in.moonshine said:
I used to live above a Nando’s. The doorway to my apartment building was also the backdoor for Nando staff. The bins got emptied 7 days a week but it was never enough so I used to have to hop over the rat traps and chicken carcasses on the way out.tlg86 said:Nando’s is overpriced shite.
Still on the plus side, sometimes you could get stoned enough to forget about that and then it was very convenient having it right there.0 -
Well, it's possible.Cyclefree said:
Why do it from there? Well, to taunt the US, for one thing. To rub its nose in its weakness. To destabilise a President. To cause dissension within its political system. And which powers now very interested in Afghanistan might want to do that?rcs1000 said:
Why would they go to Afghanistan to plan attacks on the US, when they could go to any number of friendly Islamic countries with much better air links?Cyclefree said:
And they're right to think that.Casino_Royale said:Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
Afghanistan has no ability to export terror. It has no money and no functioning economy.
Now, sure, it has the ability to be a place where terrorists hide. If I'd just ordered a terrorist attack, it's the kind of place it would be easy to hide in. But it's a place you'd hide in because there's no infrastructure. It's hard to find you in a village in the middle of the mountains in the middle of nowhere. But it's equally hard to get decent reliable Internet access. And it's very far from anyone who has actual money to pay for a terrorist attack.
Will there be Jihadi training camps in the Afghan desert? Probably. But there are camps in Pakistan and Yemen and Syria today. And those places are a hell of a lot easier to get to than Afghanistan.
I can think of two.
But Afghanistan in 2021 is a very different place to 2001.
In 2001, heroin was made with opium, and that kept the cash flowing to Afghanistan.
In 2021, heroin is being outcompeted by synthetic opiates, especially fentanyl. Heroin overdose deaths are actually falling in the US (and have been for several years), even as overall opiate deaths are going through the roof.
One of the reasons why the Taliban have been victorious is because Afghanistan has been struggling with low prices for its only large export crop. And I suspect your average Afghani opium farmer doesn't know that Chinese fentanyl is the problem, rather than the central government in Kabul.
The new Taliban government is going to be extremely cash constrained. Don't forget that more than 10% of Afghanistan's legal exports were cell phone services to visiting Americans. (And which also provided a substantial chunk of tax revenues.)
So, sure, the Taliban could decide to act as you suggest. But they are cash constrained, and reliant on the charity of others. And mounting expensive foreign terror campaigns against people who can use a drone to knock out the Naghlu hydropwer plant that supplies Kabul with all its electricity is a very risky proposition.1 -
BREAKING -
New Afghan Resettlement Scheme will allow -
5,000 Afghan refugees to come to the UK in the first year,
20,000 thousand overall.
(as reported in the 'i') https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/14277368490580418610 -
The Outpost is on Amazon Prime; a solid 2020 film based on a 2012 book based on a true story from 2009.0
-
Meh, I didn't take it personally. But you clearly did, and thought the best response was to respond in kind.IshmaelZ said:
What? You've just been told that you as a man on PB probably think "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you really think that? If you don't, are you not in the slightest, slightest bit irked by the suggestion that you do? Really? Really really?RobD said:
Totally uncalled for.IshmaelZ said:
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Hannah Arendt thought that Eichmann illustrated the banality of evil. Cyclefree seems to me to be living proof of the banality of banality. I wouldn't usually in a thousand years have the bad manners to say so, but I seriously object to anyone telling me that my reaction to women being hurt is "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you feel differently?0 -
On such a complex subject where there is highly unlikely to be unanimity of opinion and which will probably be heatedly political, that looks like a sensible opening motion. Should consensus on specifics emerge I should think it could be incorporated, and if not the debate itself is sufficient record of the views of the House.Scott_xP said:Am told the current wording of tomorrow's debate when Parliament is recalled is: "That this House has considered the situation in Afghanistan".
Nice and forensic
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/14276307374241013831 -
20 million? That's like half the country.Scott_xP said:BREAKING -
New Afghan Resettlement Scheme will allow -
5,000 Afghan refugees to come to the UK in the first year,
20,000 thousand overall.
(as reported in the 'i') https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/14277368490580418613 -
I've never dined at Nando's.IanB2 said:
My wife went once and had lamb. Her niece found this very amusing but was too polite to say anything at the time.
Also, I don't get what is "cheeky" about tucking in to one of their meals.
I've had the real deal in Portugal. And enjoyed it.0 -
Spicy chicken is an awesome invention. Nando’s do it ok but not the best. Assenheims 56 is the best.darkage said:
I used to like a Nandos, but personally they lost me with the Covid tyranny that they bought in.moonshine said:
I used to live above a Nando’s. The doorway to my apartment building was also the backdoor for Nando staff. The bins got emptied 7 days a week but it was never enough so I used to have to hop over the rat traps and chicken carcasses on the way out.tlg86 said:Nando’s is overpriced shite.
Still on the plus side, sometimes you could get stoned enough to forget about that and then it was very convenient having it right there.0 -
Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.2 -
Kabul Fried Chicken?kle4 said:
I didn't care when KFC experienced trouble, but this is far more serious.Scott_xP said:More like Nandon'ts, amiright?
BBC News - Nando's shuts restaurants as it runs short of supplies
https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1427718254567510022
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-582493371 -
How many clean shaven?kinabalu said:
None. Monogender. Monoreligion. Stultifying.DavidL said:rcs1000 said:
Of course they're not cuddly. They're extremely unpleasant.Leon said:I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each
The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now
Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope
But they're also extremely poor. Their (legal) exports cover barely a tenth of their essential imports of food, fuel and electricity.
This limits their ability to cause trouble without (at the very least) the backing of someone richer.
How many women?kinabalu said:
Yes we can hope. First impressions of that Taliban cabinet are not great though. I'm particularly perturbed by the lack of diversity.Leon said:I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each
The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now
Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope0 -
Let's just say that this isn't a great Gillette sponsorship opportunity.Charles said:
How many clean shaven?kinabalu said:
None. Monogender. Monoreligion. Stultifying.DavidL said:rcs1000 said:
Of course they're not cuddly. They're extremely unpleasant.Leon said:I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each
The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now
Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope
But they're also extremely poor. Their (legal) exports cover barely a tenth of their essential imports of food, fuel and electricity.
This limits their ability to cause trouble without (at the very least) the backing of someone richer.
How many women?kinabalu said:
Yes we can hope. First impressions of that Taliban cabinet are not great though. I'm particularly perturbed by the lack of diversity.Leon said:I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each
The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now
Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope0 -
YORKSHIRE POST: @pritipatel calls on Europe to help take on refugees #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1427743168888455172/photo/10
-
I'm physically incapable of growing a respectable beard, I hope they are understanding for such disability should I plan my next holiday there.DavidL said:
Let's just say that this isn't a great Gillette sponsorship opportunity.Charles said:
How many clean shaven?kinabalu said:
None. Monogender. Monoreligion. Stultifying.DavidL said:rcs1000 said:
Of course they're not cuddly. They're extremely unpleasant.Leon said:I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each
The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now
Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope
But they're also extremely poor. Their (legal) exports cover barely a tenth of their essential imports of food, fuel and electricity.
This limits their ability to cause trouble without (at the very least) the backing of someone richer.
How many women?kinabalu said:
Yes we can hope. First impressions of that Taliban cabinet are not great though. I'm particularly perturbed by the lack of diversity.Leon said:I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each
The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now
Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope0 -
I very much agree with this in one sense. Cynicism is a bane.Sean_F said:
The worst feature of modern life is the corrosive cynicism that holds nothing is worth fighting for, one can't do anything good, so just give up in the hope that the end comes after one's passing.pigeon said:
As an island, it would still be a good idea to maintain a reasonably substantial navy. The idea that it's not worth the bother because the UK is much smaller than the US could easily be expanded into a more general argument for giving up on everything.WhisperingOracle said:
It's not 1939, I would say, and Britain compared to the US in any case is a flea. The only militaries that will make any significant mark on the world are Russia's, China's, the US's and its NATO aegis, and any pan-European military structure that the UK also wants to be a part of.pigeon said:
Presidents come and go. A future administration might adopt a rather different attitude.Cyclefree said:
But will the US do so? I doubt it now - even if there are more attacks. It doesn't take much to plan some pretty spectacular attacks. And people can easily move around. So unless you've got pretty good intelligence - and as we've seen the intelligence has been woeful and will likely get worse now- in reality you can do very little.pigeon said:
You can inflict an enormous amount of damage from the air. Let's just hope that the capacity and will of the Americans to do that to Afghanistan is never tested.Cyclefree said:
And they're right to think that.Casino_Royale said:Afghanistan will embolden China geopolitically as they'll view it as a sign of terminal Western decadence and weakness.
The US has told the Taliban: don't terrorise us and you can be free to terrorise your people as much as you like.
Also even if terrorists return to Afghanistan and start planning attacks on the US from there, can anyone now really be confident that the US would retaliate? They might launch some drone or missile at some target that wouldn't eliminate anything at all. So the Taliban and any terror grouping that feels like it are probably free to do whatever they want.
And if the Chinese are there as the Taliban's new best friends, is the US really going to risk bombing Chinese advisors by mistake?
The US has shown weakness and this will come back to haunt it - and those who have until now relied on it, and that includes us.
Britain arguably needs to rearm, but it won't. An ever-increasing proportion of expenditure will go on hospitals and pensions, to the detriment of everything else. It's what the electorate - half of whom, accounting for demography and propensity to vote, are over 55 - will insist upon.
But if everyone was to decide nothing is worth fighting for - as in war and killing - then that would actually be terrific.1 -
Ghost of Christmas past must have visited last night.Scott_xP said:YORKSHIRE POST: @pritipatel calls on Europe to help take on refugees #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1427743168888455172/photo/1
I expect there'll be a bit of competition between powers about how many refugees to accept. It'll make us feel better about ourselves, but a bidding war like that will still benefit the people too.0 -
Once again Biden has completely sidelined the EU and most of Europe. His actual policy wrt the EU is basically the same as Trump. The rhetoric is warmer but there seems to be little difference in actual policy. The UK has been consulted and kept in the loop as expected with Boris and Biden speaking on the phone. No other European leader or EU politician has been, not even France.
I worry that this stance from Biden will hasten the EU's Russia/China focus. As I said yesterday, Boris' comment about not engaging with the Taliban had an entirely different audience than what the idiots on twitter think. It was squarely aimed at Germany and other EU nations who are happy to knuckle under China and Russia.3 -
Well it is halal (some of them anyway).Sunil_Prasannan said:
Kabul Fried Chicken?kle4 said:
I didn't care when KFC experienced trouble, but this is far more serious.Scott_xP said:More like Nandon'ts, amiright?
BBC News - Nando's shuts restaurants as it runs short of supplies
https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1427718254567510022
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-582493370 -
You aren't making a great deal of sense. How do you have the option of "not taking it personally"? Is it the case that your reaction to women being harmed is "fuck 'em"? If not, do you not mind at all the suggestion that it is? And I am not" responding in kind". I am not someone whose response to women being harmed is "fuck 'em". Cyclefree, on the other hand, is a turgid bore. So I don't really see the equivalence?RobD said:
Meh, I didn't take it personally. But you clearly did, and thought the best response was to respond in kind.IshmaelZ said:
What? You've just been told that you as a man on PB probably think "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you really think that? If you don't, are you not in the slightest, slightest bit irked by the suggestion that you do? Really? Really really?RobD said:
Totally uncalled for.IshmaelZ said:
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Hannah Arendt thought that Eichmann illustrated the banality of evil. Cyclefree seems to me to be living proof of the banality of banality. I wouldn't usually in a thousand years have the bad manners to say so, but I seriously object to anyone telling me that my reaction to women being hurt is "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you feel differently?0 -
Not completely convinced that tolerance of such failings is high on their (very short to non existent) list of credits.kle4 said:
I'm physically incapable of growing a respectable beard, I hope they are understanding for such disability should I plan my next holiday there.DavidL said:
Let's just say that this isn't a great Gillette sponsorship opportunity.Charles said:
How many clean shaven?kinabalu said:
None. Monogender. Monoreligion. Stultifying.DavidL said:rcs1000 said:
Of course they're not cuddly. They're extremely unpleasant.Leon said:I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each
The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now
Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope
But they're also extremely poor. Their (legal) exports cover barely a tenth of their essential imports of food, fuel and electricity.
This limits their ability to cause trouble without (at the very least) the backing of someone richer.
How many women?kinabalu said:
Yes we can hope. First impressions of that Taliban cabinet are not great though. I'm particularly perturbed by the lack of diversity.Leon said:I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each
The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now
Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope0 -
I remembered this result when it was reported at the time. Turns out an experiment about honesty is most likely a massive fraud. The basic numerical analysis is utterly damning.
Given that it is auto insurance based I thought it might be relevant to @rcs1000 's interests.
https://twitter.com/jpsimmon/status/1427628315939049491?s=19
https://datacolada.org/98
EDIT: omg, I have just got to the font analysis. This is wild.1 -
Because I choose not to? It's quite easy. She's clearly angry about the situation, which is understandable.IshmaelZ said:
You aren't making a great deal of sense. How do you have the option of "not taking it personally"? Is it the case that your reaction to women being harmed is "fuck 'em"? If not, do you not mind at all the suggestion that it is? And I am not" responding in kind". I am not someone whose response to women being harmed is "fuck 'em". Cyclefree, on the other hand, is a turgid bore. So I don't really see the equivalence?RobD said:
Meh, I didn't take it personally. But you clearly did, and thought the best response was to respond in kind.IshmaelZ said:
What? You've just been told that you as a man on PB probably think "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you really think that? If you don't, are you not in the slightest, slightest bit irked by the suggestion that you do? Really? Really really?RobD said:
Totally uncalled for.IshmaelZ said:
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Hannah Arendt thought that Eichmann illustrated the banality of evil. Cyclefree seems to me to be living proof of the banality of banality. I wouldn't usually in a thousand years have the bad manners to say so, but I seriously object to anyone telling me that my reaction to women being hurt is "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you feel differently?0 -
Bad maths (see me)RobD said:
20 million? That's like half the country.Scott_xP said:BREAKING -
New Afghan Resettlement Scheme will allow -
5,000 Afghan refugees to come to the UK in the first year,
20,000 thousand overall.
(as reported in the 'i') https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/14277368490580418611 -
Rey dos Frangos in Lisbonmoonshine said:
Spicy chicken is an awesome invention. Nando’s do it ok but not the best. Assenheims 56 is the best.darkage said:
I used to like a Nandos, but personally they lost me with the Covid tyranny that they bought in.moonshine said:
I used to live above a Nando’s. The doorway to my apartment building was also the backdoor for Nando staff. The bins got emptied 7 days a week but it was never enough so I used to have to hop over the rat traps and chicken carcasses on the way out.tlg86 said:Nando’s is overpriced shite.
Still on the plus side, sometimes you could get stoned enough to forget about that and then it was very convenient having it right there.0 -
I do hope we have one of those pictures of world leaders on the phone to mark the Biden-Johnson call, otherwise I shall not believe it happened.0
-
Well, and British consumers will notice problems with imports more than exports.rcs1000 said:
I think it's because the EU needed to increase their number of checks by around 10%, while we needed to double them. Much easier - scale-wise - for them than for us.CarlottaVance said:Why, Mr Gove?
British exporters have been hit harder by Brexit because they faced border checks from 1 January on shipments to the EU, while Irish and EU exporters to Britain have benefited from a phased in approach the UK government opted for over a 12-month transition period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/17/exports-from-ireland-to-great-britain-soar-in-post-brexit-trade-imbalance?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
But customs barriers were the whole point of Brexit. There would be no point if we just followed EU policy, no matter if it is more sensible.0 -
Also, does it apply in Scotland?rottenborough said:
Tediously, I will be the one to point out that there is no the Magna Carta.DougSeal said:Poor Magna didn’t die in vain…
Unity News Network (UNN)
@UnityNewsNet
BREAKING NEWS: Protestors are claiming to have "seized" Edinburgh Castle after a gathering of around 30 stormed the entrance.
One said: "We are using article 61 of the Magna Carta. We have had enough. The people of Scotland have had enough and today we claim our power back."
(also I'd argue that, Latin not having articles, The Great Charter, a Great Charter, and Great Charter, are all equally valid translations of Magna Carta, depending on context)0 -
Is there any evidence that women are less in favour of wars than men, generally speaking?Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."0 -
Again none. But that's more of a fringe issue.Charles said:
How many clean shaven?kinabalu said:
None. Monogender. Monoreligion. Stultifying.DavidL said:rcs1000 said:
Of course they're not cuddly. They're extremely unpleasant.Leon said:I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each
The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now
Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope
But they're also extremely poor. Their (legal) exports cover barely a tenth of their essential imports of food, fuel and electricity.
This limits their ability to cause trouble without (at the very least) the backing of someone richer.
How many women?kinabalu said:
Yes we can hope. First impressions of that Taliban cabinet are not great though. I'm particularly perturbed by the lack of diversity.Leon said:I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each
The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now
Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope1 -
No they're not. We believe in free trade. The only reason to have customs checks on EU imports is that WTO likes us to. We have a tariff and quota free deal. Checks are *not* necessary.Foxy said:
Well, and British consumers will notice problems with imports more than exports.rcs1000 said:
I think it's because the EU needed to increase their number of checks by around 10%, while we needed to double them. Much easier - scale-wise - for them than for us.CarlottaVance said:Why, Mr Gove?
British exporters have been hit harder by Brexit because they faced border checks from 1 January on shipments to the EU, while Irish and EU exporters to Britain have benefited from a phased in approach the UK government opted for over a 12-month transition period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/17/exports-from-ireland-to-great-britain-soar-in-post-brexit-trade-imbalance?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
But customs barriers were the whole point of Brexit. There would be no point if we just followed EU policy, no matter if it is more sensible.1 -
Silence is always an optionIshmaelZ said:
You aren't making a great deal of sense. How do you have the option of "not taking it personally"? Is it the case that your reaction to women being harmed is "fuck 'em"? If not, do you not mind at all the suggestion that it is? And I am not" responding in kind". I am not someone whose response to women being harmed is "fuck 'em". Cyclefree, on the other hand, is a turgid bore. So I don't really see the equivalence?RobD said:
Meh, I didn't take it personally. But you clearly did, and thought the best response was to respond in kind.IshmaelZ said:
What? You've just been told that you as a man on PB probably think "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you really think that? If you don't, are you not in the slightest, slightest bit irked by the suggestion that you do? Really? Really really?RobD said:
Totally uncalled for.IshmaelZ said:
Oh my god. Please tell us that doesn't mean the end of those ballsachingly dull, sententious, overlong, unimaginative and originality free headers? I don't think the site can take it. PB RIP.Cyclefree said:I am both furious and sad at the way women are being abandoned and treated as regrettable - but fundamentally unimportant - collateral damage.
I know all the arguments etc etc. But once again, men fight wars, decide how to order society, invent religions etc and it is women and girls who have to pay the bloody price.
In the nicest possible way, men really just need to fuck off. They're a menace. They need to go away and learn how to behave like civilised people and then maybe they can be allowed to play with a train set or two.
And please I know you are probably mostly quite a nice lot. But in the end, admit it, you'd all do what cuddly Jo did: "Women will be hurt by this." "Yes - but fuck 'em."
Hannah Arendt thought that Eichmann illustrated the banality of evil. Cyclefree seems to me to be living proof of the banality of banality. I wouldn't usually in a thousand years have the bad manners to say so, but I seriously object to anyone telling me that my reaction to women being hurt is "Yes - but fuck 'em." Do you feel differently?0 -
Nandos is South African. A lot of Portuguese moved there when Mozambique got independence, though some went to the motherland.SandyRentool said:
I've never dined at Nando's.IanB2 said:
My wife went once and had lamb. Her niece found this very amusing but was too polite to say anything at the time.
Also, I don't get what is "cheeky" about tucking in to one of their meals.
I've had the real deal in Portugal. And enjoyed it.
0 -
You should pore over the details until you tease the truth outkinabalu said:
Again none. But that's more of a fringe issue.Charles said:
How many clean shaven?kinabalu said:
None. Monogender. Monoreligion. Stultifying.DavidL said:rcs1000 said:
Of course they're not cuddly. They're extremely unpleasant.Leon said:I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each
The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now
Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope
But they're also extremely poor. Their (legal) exports cover barely a tenth of their essential imports of food, fuel and electricity.
This limits their ability to cause trouble without (at the very least) the backing of someone richer.
How many women?kinabalu said:
Yes we can hope. First impressions of that Taliban cabinet are not great though. I'm particularly perturbed by the lack of diversity.Leon said:I’m amazed that as many as 1 in 5 want to go back in and start the war again. How? Interesting that this cuts across the parties. 20% of each
The withdrawal was probably an error, the management of the withdrawal is a tragic catastrophe, but it is done now
Let’s hope the new Cuddly Teletubby Taliban are for real. I doubt it, but we can hope1 -
I read it as a verbal kick by a pissed off woman against a world run by men. I wasn't offended.kle4 said:Cyclefree is no shrinking violet and I would think would not suggest she is immune from criticism. I wouldn't share IshmaelZ's response, but I would think it reasonable for anyone to object to being told what their own thoughts are, no matter how justifiably angry the person saying it is, and surely his point is fair to hold even if the manner of making it objected to? I dare say Cyclefree would object in no certain terms if told her statements meant other than she intended, but in fact meant something far more sinister.
Yes, people will say things, sincerely, about what they believe, yet their actions may be contrary to that. But fury, however righteous, doesn't mean that an accusation that words/actions X actually mean Y has to be automatically accepted.0 -
Every day is a school day on PB.Foxy said:
Nandos is South African. A lot of Portuguese moved there when Mozambique got independence, though some went to the motherland.SandyRentool said:
I've never dined at Nando's.IanB2 said:
My wife went once and had lamb. Her niece found this very amusing but was too polite to say anything at the time.
Also, I don't get what is "cheeky" about tucking in to one of their meals.
I've had the real deal in Portugal. And enjoyed it.0 -
That's fascinating. I wonder what would be found if so many of our Covid projections were subject to that kind of analysis.Alistair said:I remembered this result when it was reported at the time. Turns out an experiment about honesty is most likely a massive fraud. The basic numerical analysis is utterly damning.
Given that it is auto insurance based I thought it might be relevant to @rcs1000 's interests.
https://twitter.com/jpsimmon/status/1427628315939049491?s=19
https://datacolada.org/98
EDIT: omg, I have just got to the font analysis. This is wild.0
