Brillo has widened his portfolio of competence to include being un expert en pêche. Nice try Andra, but everyone's still splitting their sides over your GB News debacle.
Not really Brillo is right here.
Jersey know (heck I know my first reference on here to this exact issue is months old) there is a set of boats that have been overfishing but was never able to identify them as they intentionally avoided tracking and paperwork.
Sadly they now need evidence to demonstrate that they have the right to fish there which they don't have for reasons in the previous paragraph.
The shift to renewables is already on, and Aberdeen is already a hydrogen hub. Note the last paragraph: “It is, I expect, a huge political regret that we missed out on a manufacturing windfall from wind. We have massively invested in wind but we don’t make a lot of the kit here,”
How is it we missed out on this? Half our energy generated by wind yesterday and all the turbines are imported. Subsidy is/was needed to get that industry going, we're supposedly hosing money at all kinds of fripperies so how about cash to get the Renewable UK sector competitive? Then we can be an exporter of our own technology instead of increasingly reliant on imports.
Apparently personal number plates are a good thing:
Kirsty Blackman, the MP for Aberdeen North and the Scottish National party’s Westminster spokesperson on the economy, says there are more cars with personalised number plates on the city’s streets than anywhere else in the UK bar central London.
Very good article.
As M. Thatcher pointed out, when they introduced buying and selling of personalised plates, the initial sale is a tax on the rich and vain.
Plus personalised plates are easier to remember/identify - which makes it harder for the owners of such to get away with breaking various laws....
Handy wanker identifier also.
Oi, I have a personalised plate.
Was a gift from my parents when I passed my test.
Alongside a brand new Volvo 440.
TSE you have dropped in my estimations dramatically.
The neither the plates and the car were my idea.
I felt incredibly guilty because that car was the first time my father had bought a brand new car and it wasn’t for him.
He chose the car as it was the safest vehicle on the road.
OK you are back up there again (not that you probably care whatsoever). I have to say that you sound like you have very nice parents.
My parents have this trait that a lot of people with Indian sub content heritage, you have to ensure your kids have the best opportunities in life. That means you have to make the occasional sacrifices.
They also hated debt, so they were always cautious with money except when it came to me.
Heck, they made sure I got on the property ladder when I was 21 rather than my plan to rent.
Fortunately my successes and their own decisions allow them to have a fantastic life.
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
That's neither reasonable nor pragmatic! He's literally talking about cancelling views he doesn't agree with and purging people who hold them. HYUFD is a Stalinist nightmare of a politician and almost everyone, Conservatives included, would fail his ridiculous purity tests.
I'm not entirely convinced that HYUFD is genuine. Would a party office-holder really go out of his way to drive sympathisers away from the party and urge them to vote Labour, or talk of "cancelling" people (surely the kind of language that right-wingers accuse lefties of using)? He's often interesting and well-informed on polling, and always polite, but politically he doesn't seem quite credible - but no offence if that's how he really feels.
Was talking to a lurker the other day who was saying much the same. Can't be real. Also seems, for a youngish person, to have a lot of time to comment here.
He is an elected official of the party
So are his duties that light that he can spend the time here he does?
I'm retired, and find plenty of other things to do, especially when there's cricket or Rugby League to watch!
Town Councils are serious business I have you know
Thornaby Town Council was a serious joke. Still is. As was neighbouring Billingham (a financial black hole with zero oversight) and Yarm (two rival groups of ex-Tory independents literally fighting in council meetings).
Only because he thinks Prince Charles is pushing climate change too hard (as he thinks are William and Harry). Hence Fox can never be a Tory or British conservative because he does not support our constitutional monarchy, all he can ever be is an extreme libertarian anti wokeist.
However given Khan won the London Mayoralty as the Labour candidate pushing action on climate change hard and Shaun Bailey as the Conservative candidate, also pro action on climate change, got 893,051 votes to just 47,634 for Fox as the Reclaim candidate it is pretty clear which route is more successful.
Should Truss be kicked out of the conservative party then?
Truss has never on a Conservative platform called for a republic, the only time she did so was in her youth at a Liberal Democrat conference when she was still a LD.
If she started calling for a republic on a Tory platform then yes I would have serious reservations about her staying a Minister or even being allowed to remain a Tory MP. Her private views are her own, if she is still a republican 'a don't ask, don't tell' policy for her in terms of her views on the monarchy are fine by me as long as she does not start to push republicanism in public
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
Being a republican is incompatible with being a Tory. Support for constitutional monarchy has always been a defining feature of British Toryism.
Belief in the free market and small state for example is shared with Orange Book LDs and indeed Tories have often been protectionist and big government like Boris. Belief in Brexit was shared with UKIP and the Brexit Party, however the Tories have often been pro EU like Heath and still some Remainers who accept Brexit are in the Tories today. However support for constitutional monarchy and inherited wealth is what has defined Toryism and the Conservative Party and what almost all Tories have always agreed on
How many Tories do you think there are who define themselves as the party of the Monarchy, Church of England, landed gentry and inherited wealth?
I have this horrible feeling that there might actually be a lot more than I think there are.
And I am struggling to think of why any of those subjects should be top of anyone's list of priorities, in particular 'landed gentry'. I mean why landed gentry? I would have thought (depending upon your outlook) it would have been things like free markets, organised labour, poverty, constitution, NHS, the environment, capitalism, nationalisation, nationalism, etc, etc, etc)
More Tories today agree with each other on retaining the monarchy and keeping inheritance tax low than agree with each other on virtually any other topic, from the right rate of government spending and rates of income taxes, to nationalising the railways and utilities, to abortion and trans issues, to military intervention abroad, to climate change and even on Brexit.
The founding principles of support for the monarchy (still head of the C of E too of course) and inherited wealth of the Tory Party and then the Conservative Party still define the Conservative Party and Tories to this day
OK I can accept that but what about Church of England and landed gentry? I'm really struggling with the latter in particular as it doesn't seem to make any sense so I suspect I am missing something.
That’s what it was at the time it split from the Peelites over the corn laws
The Peelites joined with the Whigs and Radicals to form the Liberal party ie the main opponents of the Conservative Party and Tories until the rise of Labour in the early 20th century
Most of them rejoined the Tories well before then. A lot in the 1840s and the in successive waves between the 1870s and 1890s
Polygraphs (they are not lie detectors) are worthless, they're barely above 50%. If the coin toss had gone against him he would've looked guilty even though the machine is utterly without value.
How odd. I was going to link to a blog I wrote excoriating them and it doesn't appear to be around any more... well, I couldn't find it via Google, but here it is having manually sought it out and luckily guessed the right year.
Either the switching of cars was part of a very cunning plan, or the police stitched him up good and proper.
Interested enough to have a look on t'internet; there are lots of references to the case. Apparently the BBC did a re-enactment and Razzell refused to do a lie-detector test. The wife's new boy-friend thinks he did it.
If he'd done a lie detector test and it had cleared him, I wonder if he'd have still been charged? I'm surprised that the blood stain evidence was admissible in court, unless there's a suggestion that the murder happened after the original search (i.e. some time after she had gone missing).
Only because he thinks Prince Charles is pushing climate change too hard (as he thinks are William and Harry). Hence Fox can never be a Tory or British conservative because he does not support our constitutional monarchy, all he can ever be is an extreme libertarian anti wokeist.
However given Khan won the London Mayoralty as the Labour candidate pushing action on climate change hard and Shaun Bailey as the Conservative candidate, also pro action on climate change, got 893,051 votes to just 47,634 for Fox as the Reclaim candidate it is pretty clear which route is more successful.
Should Truss be kicked out of the conservative party then?
According to @HYUFD he has excommunicated me and most every moderate conservative who does not subscribe to his narrow 1950s style Little Englander attitudes
He is no advert for the conservative party
The counter-argument is that quite possibly, he is?
Parties change, and often older members don't keep up with the times and think they are supporting some image of how the party was, once upon a time, rather than how it is now.
No he isn't. He operates on an unchanged prejudice of what the Tories from the past were rather than keeping up with what they really are.
You are not a Tory now either, indeed you even did a thread header a few weeks ago saying why you had left the party (as well of course as the fact you voted for Blair like BigG in 2001 when genuine Tories like me were still voting Tory).
You are a centre right liberal, you are not a Tory
So even now the Conservative party is still more monarchist than it is pro Brexit (ie believed in and voted for it rather than just accepted the result)
Absolutely. I am just observing that to be a true Tory you need to believe in Brexit. That is what the Tory party is these days.
No. You have to believe that now we are out, we are out, for better or for worse we are out. We are seeing the perfidiousness of the EU, currently the French , but there will be others. The EU empire will fail just as Rome did.
Rome did fall. But it took a long time - millennia. We don't need to worry about the fall of the EU just yet. Our departure has neither highlighted its instability or contributed to its hastened destruction.
Either the switching of cars was part of a very cunning plan, or the police stitched him up good and proper.
Interested enough to have a look on t'internet; there are lots of references to the case. Apparently the BBC did a re-enactment and Razzell refused to do a lie-detector test. The wife's new boy-friend thinks he did it.
Been looking a bit further. The BBC's 'Inside Justice' team' s Louise Shorter told the documentary crew: "It's been a case that for 15 years has little question marks around it. I don't think those little question marks are there any more for me."
Very depressed to hear on the radio this morning that this COP26 thing is going on for 12 days. I'm already bored of hearing what such important voices as Archbishops think will be a good result from the conference.
Thank goodness we're on the verge of war with the Frogs to keep things at least slightly interesting!
So about diplomacy.. It comes to English in the late 18C, (unsurprisingly) from the French diplomatie, formed from diplomate the same way aristocratie was from aristocrate. The French diplomate was from Modern Latin diplomaticus, which game from the genitive case diplomatis of diploma - an official document.
This was from Ancient Greek δίπλωμα, which means "twice folded thing" and was the word for an official document, but also for the parallel streams of the milky way, the foetal position, or a double pot for boiling unguents.
In modern Greek δίπλωμα has the common modern meaning of diploma in English, but still retains its 'double folded' sense, meaning "the folding of, say, a map - especially in half".
Let's hope these holders of double folded official documents don't act like climate diplodocuses! (diplodocus - means 'double beamed' which is (surprisingly to me) nothing to with its long neck, and is to do with the shape of chevron bones in the tail)
Brillo has widened his portfolio of competence to include being un expert en pêche. Nice try Andra, but everyone's still splitting their sides over your GB News debacle.
Not really Brillo is right here.
Jersey know (heck I know my first reference on here to this exact issue is months old) there is a set of boats that have been overfishing but was never able to identify them as they intentionally avoided tracking and paperwork.
Sadly they now need evidence to demonstrate that they have the right to fish there which they don't have for reasons in the previous paragraph.
The rights and wrongs of who can fish in the waters of the Channel Islands induce an ennui so strong in me that I may check if the toaster cable will stretch to the bath. My main point was that Neil, as with so many other subjects, has appointed himself a 'splainer.
Only because he thinks Prince Charles is pushing climate change too hard (as he thinks are William and Harry). Hence Fox can never be a Tory or British conservative because he does not support our constitutional monarchy, all he can ever be is an extreme libertarian anti wokeist.
However given Khan won the London Mayoralty as the Labour candidate pushing action on climate change hard and Shaun Bailey as the Conservative candidate, also pro action on climate change, got 893,051 votes to just 47,634 for Fox as the Reclaim candidate it is pretty clear which route is more successful.
Should Truss be kicked out of the conservative party then?
Truss has never on a Conservative platform called for a republic, the only time she did so was in her youth at a Liberal Democrat conference when she was still a LD.
If she started calling for a republic on a Tory platform then yes I would have serious reservations about her staying a Minister or even being allowed to remain a Tory MP. Her private views are her own, if she is still a republican 'a don't ask, don't tell' policy for her in terms of her views on the monarchy are fine by me as long as she does not start to push republicanism in public
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
Being a republican is incompatible with being a Tory. Support for constitutional monarchy has always been a defining feature of British Toryism.
Belief in the free market and small state for example is shared with Orange Book LDs and indeed Tories have often been protectionist and big government like Boris. Belief in Brexit was shared with UKIP and the Brexit Party, however the Tories have often been pro EU like Heath and still some Remainers who accept Brexit are in the Tories today. However support for constitutional monarchy and inherited wealth is what has defined Toryism and the Conservative Party and what almost all Tories have always agreed on
How many Tories do you think there are who define themselves as the party of the Monarchy, Church of England, landed gentry and inherited wealth?
I have this horrible feeling that there might actually be a lot more than I think there are.
And I am struggling to think of why any of those subjects should be top of anyone's list of priorities, in particular 'landed gentry'. I mean why landed gentry? I would have thought (depending upon your outlook) it would have been things like free markets, organised labour, poverty, constitution, NHS, the environment, capitalism, nationalisation, nationalism, etc, etc, etc)
Someone said that Evelyn Waugh was one of the many members of the Einglkish middle classes who regard themselves as landed gentry in the eyes of God. I think there's a lot of that about still.
Either the switching of cars was part of a very cunning plan, or the police stitched him up good and proper.
Interested enough to have a look on t'internet; there are lots of references to the case. Apparently the BBC did a re-enactment and Razzell refused to do a lie-detector test. The wife's new boy-friend thinks he did it.
Not surprised. The lie detector is utterly unproven to be accurate. It isn't even permissible evidence.
Totally O/T, I see Glyn Razzell has had his parole request turned down under Helen's Law as he would not identify where he buried his wife's body as he continues to plead his innocence and states he does not know where she is.
This is truly one of the oddest cases in legal history as there is no evidence that his wife is in fact dead. The only thing that convicted him was that police found her blood in a car he was using, but only found it on their third look. They had it for four days on the 2nd time they looked and returned the car to the owner, who then had it valetted due to the state the police left it in with fingerprint powder everywhere. When they took it in for the third time they found a few bloodspots that was visible to the naked eye in the boot. There is no explanation as to how the police missed these in their first 2 looks. No other DNA from his wife was found.
No one saw him abduct her from a busy Swindon street, none of the 25 CCTV cameras videoed his vehicle on his drive to the abduction site, and none videoed him on his drive to whereever he buried her. His neighbour confirmed that the vehicle was on Razell's driveway just 45 minutes after the alleged abduction.
Razzell also provided a decent alibi to the police. He claimed to have walked by a police station at the time of the abduction which had numerous CCTV cameras that would have videoed him. All were out of order (which Razzell would not have known).
If he gave up the place he buried his wife he would probably be realeased by now as he has been a model prisoner.
Just imagine if he has not killed her, he will not know where her body is and therefore will probably never be released.
Juries have their own dynamic but I suspect there was more to the story than you have just laid out otherwise I don’t think there would have been a conviction
Quite. That there was 'bad blood' between husband and wife isn't really mentioned, although reading between the lines there must have been.
As a non-lawyer, I am disturbed by cases (as reported in the public prints) that seem to have been decided on the principle that there is no smoke without fire, or at most a pattern of offending, rather than direct evidence that this particular defendant committed this particular crime.
Brillo has widened his portfolio of competence to include being un expert en pêche. Nice try Andra, but everyone's still splitting their sides over your GB News debacle.
Not really Brillo is right here.
Jersey know (heck I know my first reference on here to this exact issue is months old) there is a set of boats that have been overfishing but was never able to identify them as they intentionally avoided tracking and paperwork.
Sadly they now need evidence to demonstrate that they have the right to fish there which they don't have for reasons in the previous paragraph.
The rights and wrongs of who can fish in the waters of the Channel Islands induce an ennui so strong in me that I may check if the toaster cable will stretch to the bath. My main point was that Neil, as with so many other subjects, has appointed himself a 'splainer.
I thought explaining things in the news was sort of the point of journalism? Not that they do it very well for the most part, but it is part of his job.
Very depressed to hear on the radio this morning that this COP26 thing is going on for 12 days. I'm already bored of hearing what such important voices as Archbishops think will be a good result from the conference.
Thank goodness we're on the verge of war with the Frogs to keep things at least slightly interesting!
So about diplomacy.. It comes to English in the late 18C, (unsurprisingly) from the French diplomatie, formed from diplomate the same way aristocratie was from aristocrate. The French diplomate was from Modern Latin diplomaticus, which game from the genitive case diplomatis of diploma - an official document.
This was from Ancient Greek δίπλωμα, which means "twice folded thing" and was the word for an official document, but also for the parallel streams of the milky way, the foetal position, or a double pot for boiling unguents.
In modern Greek δίπλωμα has the common modern meaning of diploma in English, but still retains its 'double folded' sense, meaning "the folding of, say, a map - especially in half".
Let's hope these holders of double folded official documents don't act like climate diplodocuses! (diplodocus - means 'double beamed' which is (surprisingly to me) nothing to with its long neck, and is to do with the shape of chevron bones in the tail)
Wait until you hear about the unelected clergy in our upper chamber.
Brillo has widened his portfolio of competence to include being un expert en pêche. Nice try Andra, but everyone's still splitting their sides over your GB News debacle.
Not really Brillo is right here.
Jersey know (heck I know my first reference on here to this exact issue is months old) there is a set of boats that have been overfishing but was never able to identify them as they intentionally avoided tracking and paperwork.
Sadly they now need evidence to demonstrate that they have the right to fish there which they don't have for reasons in the previous paragraph.
The rights and wrongs of who can fish in the waters of the Channel Islands induce an ennui so strong in me that I may check if the toaster cable will stretch to the bath. My main point was that Neil, as with so many other subjects, has appointed himself a 'splainer.
Either the switching of cars was part of a very cunning plan, or the police stitched him up good and proper.
Interested enough to have a look on t'internet; there are lots of references to the case. Apparently the BBC did a re-enactment and Razzell refused to do a lie-detector test. The wife's new boy-friend thinks he did it.
Not surprised. The lie detector is utterly unproven to be accurate. It isn't even permissible evidence.
Is it permissible to say that the defendant has refused to take one? It bloody well shouldn't be.
Brillo has widened his portfolio of competence to include being un expert en pêche. Nice try Andra, but everyone's still splitting their sides over your GB News debacle.
Not really Brillo is right here.
Jersey know (heck I know my first reference on here to this exact issue is months old) there is a set of boats that have been overfishing but was never able to identify them as they intentionally avoided tracking and paperwork.
Sadly they now need evidence to demonstrate that they have the right to fish there which they don't have for reasons in the previous paragraph.
The rights and wrongs of who can fish in the waters of the Channel Islands induce an ennui so strong in me that I may check if the toaster cable will stretch to the bath. My main point was that Neil, as with so many other subjects, has appointed himself a 'splainer.
I thought explaining things in the news was sort of the point of journalism? Not that they do it very well for the most part, but it is part of his job.
I'm not sure if bickering with randos on twitter and sicking hordes of your gammony followers on to folk who disagree with you is part of that sacred contract to enlighten, but opinions may differ.
Totally O/T, I see Glyn Razzell has had his parole request turned down under Helen's Law as he would not identify where he buried his wife's body as he continues to plead his innocence and states he does not know where she is.
This is truly one of the oddest cases in legal history as there is no evidence that his wife is in fact dead. The only thing that convicted him was that police found her blood in a car he was using, but only found it on their third look. They had it for four days on the 2nd time they looked and returned the car to the owner, who then had it valetted due to the state the police left it in with fingerprint powder everywhere. When they took it in for the third time they found a few bloodspots that was visible to the naked eye in the boot. There is no explanation as to how the police missed these in their first 2 looks. No other DNA from his wife was found.
No one saw him abduct her from a busy Swindon street, none of the 25 CCTV cameras videoed his vehicle on his drive to the abduction site, and none videoed him on his drive to whereever he buried her. His neighbour confirmed that the vehicle was on Razell's driveway just 45 minutes after the alleged abduction.
Razzell also provided a decent alibi to the police. He claimed to have walked by a police station at the time of the abduction which had numerous CCTV cameras that would have videoed him. All were out of order (which Razzell would not have known).
If he gave up the place he buried his wife he would probably be realeased by now as he has been a model prisoner.
Just imagine if he has not killed her, he will not know where her body is and therefore will probably never be released.
Juries have their own dynamic but I suspect there was more to the story than you have just laid out otherwise I don’t think there would have been a conviction
Quite. That there was 'bad blood' between husband and wife isn't really mentioned, although reading between the lines there must have been.
As a non-lawyer, I am disturbed by cases (as reported in the public prints) that seem to have been decided on the principle that there is no smoke without fire, or at most a pattern of offending, rather than direct evidence that this particular defendant committed this particular crime.
There's also something a bit pass-the-sick bag about laws called [first_name]'s Law.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
That's neither reasonable nor pragmatic! He's literally talking about cancelling views he doesn't agree with and purging people who hold them. HYUFD is a Stalinist nightmare of a politician and almost everyone, Conservatives included, would fail his ridiculous purity tests.
I'm not entirely convinced that HYUFD is genuine. Would a party office-holder really go out of his way to drive sympathisers away from the party and urge them to vote Labour, or talk of "cancelling" people (surely the kind of language that right-wingers accuse lefties of using)? He's often interesting and well-informed on polling, and always polite, but politically he doesn't seem quite credible - but no offence if that's how he really feels.
Was talking to a lurker the other day who was saying much the same. Can't be real. Also seems, for a youngish person, to have a lot of time to comment here.
He is an elected official of the party
So are his duties that light that he can spend the time here he does?
I'm retired, and find plenty of other things to do, especially when there's cricket or Rugby League to watch!
Town Councils are serious business I have you know
Thornaby Town Council was a serious joke. Still is. As was neighbouring Billingham (a financial black hole with zero oversight) and Yarm (two rival groups of ex-Tory independents literally fighting in council meetings).
I'd abolish that whole tier in a heartbeat.
Town and parish councils are the closest layer of local government to most market towns and villages and arguably most relevant to what goes on there.
Indeed in some unitary councils like Buckinghamshire and Cornwall the old district councils have been abolished and the town and parish councils are the only layer of local government before the unitary councils (which have effectively replaced the old county councils there)
Brillo has widened his portfolio of competence to include being un expert en pêche. Nice try Andra, but everyone's still splitting their sides over your GB News debacle.
Not really Brillo is right here.
Jersey know (heck I know my first reference on here to this exact issue is months old) there is a set of boats that have been overfishing but was never able to identify them as they intentionally avoided tracking and paperwork.
Sadly they now need evidence to demonstrate that they have the right to fish there which they don't have for reasons in the previous paragraph.
The rights and wrongs of who can fish in the waters of the Channel Islands induce an ennui so strong in me that I may check if the toaster cable will stretch to the bath. My main point was that Neil, as with so many other subjects, has appointed himself a 'splainer.
I thought explaining things in the news was sort of the point of journalism? Not that they do it very well for the most part, but it is part of his job.
I'm not sure if bickering with randos on twitter and sicking hordes of your gammony followers on to folk who disagree with you is part of that sacred contract to enlighten, but opinions may differ.
Overcast, rainy, windy. We need to burn more coal to get that Mediterranean climate.
Or we might end up with an Icelandic one. Heck of a gamble.
Indeed. Advocates of climate change to facilitate Aberdeen vineyards should follow lines of latitude East or West to see what other options are available to the weather gods.
Totally O/T, I see Glyn Razzell has had his parole request turned down under Helen's Law as he would not identify where he buried his wife's body as he continues to plead his innocence and states he does not know where she is.
This is truly one of the oddest cases in legal history as there is no evidence that his wife is in fact dead. The only thing that convicted him was that police found her blood in a car he was using, but only found it on their third look. They had it for four days on the 2nd time they looked and returned the car to the owner, who then had it valetted due to the state the police left it in with fingerprint powder everywhere. When they took it in for the third time they found a few bloodspots that was visible to the naked eye in the boot. There is no explanation as to how the police missed these in their first 2 looks. No other DNA from his wife was found.
No one saw him abduct her from a busy Swindon street, none of the 25 CCTV cameras videoed his vehicle on his drive to the abduction site, and none videoed him on his drive to whereever he buried her. His neighbour confirmed that the vehicle was on Razell's driveway just 45 minutes after the alleged abduction.
Razzell also provided a decent alibi to the police. He claimed to have walked by a police station at the time of the abduction which had numerous CCTV cameras that would have videoed him. All were out of order (which Razzell would not have known).
If he gave up the place he buried his wife he would probably be realeased by now as he has been a model prisoner.
Just imagine if he has not killed her, he will not know where her body is and therefore will probably never be released.
Juries have their own dynamic but I suspect there was more to the story than you have just laid out otherwise I don’t think there would have been a conviction
This is a thought process we are all guilty of - ah, it is probably more complicated than it looks, lets move on. Juries are not infallible, there are lots of dodgy convictions.
There are positives and negatives to this. On the one hand, the law will motivate murderers to reveal what actually happened after they have given up on appealing their convictions, but this is at the expense of the genuinely innocent who get a defacto whole life sentence, unless they give a false confession or make up a story about where the body is in order to eventually get out of jail.
I would argue that the negatives outweigh the positives, but it was clearly a politically irresistable law. There will be lots of perverse and unfair outcomes.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Only if the two tribes refuse to breed with each other…
Only because he thinks Prince Charles is pushing climate change too hard (as he thinks are William and Harry). Hence Fox can never be a Tory or British conservative because he does not support our constitutional monarchy, all he can ever be is an extreme libertarian anti wokeist.
However given Khan won the London Mayoralty as the Labour candidate pushing action on climate change hard and Shaun Bailey as the Conservative candidate, also pro action on climate change, got 893,051 votes to just 47,634 for Fox as the Reclaim candidate it is pretty clear which route is more successful.
Should Truss be kicked out of the conservative party then?
Truss has never on a Conservative platform called for a republic, the only time she did so was in her youth at a Liberal Democrat conference when she was still a LD.
If she started calling for a republic on a Tory platform then yes I would have serious reservations about her staying a Minister or even being allowed to remain a Tory MP. Her private views are her own, if she is still a republican 'a don't ask, don't tell' policy for her in terms of her views on the monarchy are fine by me as long as she does not start to push republicanism in public
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
Being a republican is incompatible with being a Tory. Support for constitutional monarchy has always been a defining feature of British Toryism.
Belief in the free market and small state for example is shared with Orange Book LDs and indeed Tories have often been protectionist and big government like Boris. Belief in Brexit was shared with UKIP and the Brexit Party, however the Tories have often been pro EU like Heath and still some Remainers who accept Brexit are in the Tories today. However support for constitutional monarchy and inherited wealth is what has defined Toryism and the Conservative Party and what almost all Tories have always agreed on
How many Tories do you think there are who define themselves as the party of the Monarchy, Church of England, landed gentry and inherited wealth?
I have this horrible feeling that there might actually be a lot more than I think there are.
And I am struggling to think of why any of those subjects should be top of anyone's list of priorities, in particular 'landed gentry'. I mean why landed gentry? I would have thought (depending upon your outlook) it would have been things like free markets, organised labour, poverty, constitution, NHS, the environment, capitalism, nationalisation, nationalism, etc, etc, etc)
I don't think many. Its noteable that of the many Tories and former Tories here that HYUFD is the only 1750s regressive who speaks like that.
Only because he thinks Prince Charles is pushing climate change too hard (as he thinks are William and Harry). Hence Fox can never be a Tory or British conservative because he does not support our constitutional monarchy, all he can ever be is an extreme libertarian anti wokeist.
However given Khan won the London Mayoralty as the Labour candidate pushing action on climate change hard and Shaun Bailey as the Conservative candidate, also pro action on climate change, got 893,051 votes to just 47,634 for Fox as the Reclaim candidate it is pretty clear which route is more successful.
Should Truss be kicked out of the conservative party then?
Truss has never on a Conservative platform called for a republic, the only time she did so was in her youth at a Liberal Democrat conference when she was still a LD.
If she started calling for a republic on a Tory platform then yes I would have serious reservations about her staying a Minister or even being allowed to remain a Tory MP. Her private views are her own, if she is still a republican 'a don't ask, don't tell' policy for her in terms of her views on the monarchy are fine by me as long as she does not start to push republicanism in public
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
Being a republican is incompatible with being a Tory. Support for constitutional monarchy has always been a defining feature of British Toryism.
Belief in the free market and small state for example is shared with Orange Book LDs and indeed Tories have often been protectionist and big government like Boris. Belief in Brexit was shared with UKIP and the Brexit Party, however the Tories have often been pro EU like Heath and still some Remainers who accept Brexit are in the Tories today. However support for constitutional monarchy and inherited wealth is what has defined Toryism and the Conservative Party and what almost all Tories have always agreed on
How many Tories do you think there are who define themselves as the party of the Monarchy, Church of England, landed gentry and inherited wealth?
I have this horrible feeling that there might actually be a lot more than I think there are.
And I am struggling to think of why any of those subjects should be top of anyone's list of priorities, in particular 'landed gentry'. I mean why landed gentry? I would have thought (depending upon your outlook) it would have been things like free markets, organised labour, poverty, constitution, NHS, the environment, capitalism, nationalisation, nationalism, etc, etc, etc)
I think that quite a few are very sympathetic to such things. You can go through a drive through rural Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, and see village after village with Church of England primary schools, attractive big houses, where the Conservatives win 75%+ of the vote.
That said, I don't support HYUFD's rather narrow definition of conservatism.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Evolution is a ruthlessly eugenic process; it is more the differential extermination of the unfit than the survival of the fit. Characteristics are preserved and transmitted only by individuals who survive to adulthood, and breed. We all survive to adulthood these days because Our Wonderful NHS so that filter goes out of the window. That leaves breeding, so if we are evolving at all it should be in the direction of being sexier, more prolific etc. Even that doesn't work very well because there is no marked imbalance of the sexes, here at any rate.
Totally O/T, I see Glyn Razzell has had his parole request turned down under Helen's Law as he would not identify where he buried his wife's body as he continues to plead his innocence and states he does not know where she is.
This is truly one of the oddest cases in legal history as there is no evidence that his wife is in fact dead. The only thing that convicted him was that police found her blood in a car he was using, but only found it on their third look. They had it for four days on the 2nd time they looked and returned the car to the owner, who then had it valetted due to the state the police left it in with fingerprint powder everywhere. When they took it in for the third time they found a few bloodspots that was visible to the naked eye in the boot. There is no explanation as to how the police missed these in their first 2 looks. No other DNA from his wife was found.
No one saw him abduct her from a busy Swindon street, none of the 25 CCTV cameras videoed his vehicle on his drive to the abduction site, and none videoed him on his drive to whereever he buried her. His neighbour confirmed that the vehicle was on Razell's driveway just 45 minutes after the alleged abduction.
Razzell also provided a decent alibi to the police. He claimed to have walked by a police station at the time of the abduction which had numerous CCTV cameras that would have videoed him. All were out of order (which Razzell would not have known).
If he gave up the place he buried his wife he would probably be realeased by now as he has been a model prisoner.
Just imagine if he has not killed her, he will not know where her body is and therefore will probably never be released.
Juries have their own dynamic but I suspect there was more to the story than you have just laid out otherwise I don’t think there would have been a conviction
A lot depends on the information that is presented to the jury. Given the details in this blog post it does seem as though the defence lawyer must have been very poor, or there is evidence for the prosecution that they've left out.
The format and structure of this conference makes pretty clear it's purpose is to make everyone involved feel important. If they wanted to achieve anything they wouldn't design them like this.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Like it. A basket of Neanderthals*; they're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it.
*though I get that they have received a very bad 'winners' press
Brillo has widened his portfolio of competence to include being un expert en pêche. Nice try Andra, but everyone's still splitting their sides over your GB News debacle.
Quite funny - Purkiss being as gormless/trollish as usual, even when Brillo mentions three points in his tweet she can only find the one that was debunked months ago .
Not looking good for Mons. Macaron if his little helpers can't find anything credible-sounding at all.
Totally O/T, I see Glyn Razzell has had his parole request turned down under Helen's Law as he would not identify where he buried his wife's body as he continues to plead his innocence and states he does not know where she is.
This is truly one of the oddest cases in legal history as there is no evidence that his wife is in fact dead. The only thing that convicted him was that police found her blood in a car he was using, but only found it on their third look. They had it for four days on the 2nd time they looked and returned the car to the owner, who then had it valetted due to the state the police left it in with fingerprint powder everywhere. When they took it in for the third time they found a few bloodspots that was visible to the naked eye in the boot. There is no explanation as to how the police missed these in their first 2 looks. No other DNA from his wife was found.
No one saw him abduct her from a busy Swindon street, none of the 25 CCTV cameras videoed his vehicle on his drive to the abduction site, and none videoed him on his drive to whereever he buried her. His neighbour confirmed that the vehicle was on Razell's driveway just 45 minutes after the alleged abduction.
Razzell also provided a decent alibi to the police. He claimed to have walked by a police station at the time of the abduction which had numerous CCTV cameras that would have videoed him. All were out of order (which Razzell would not have known).
If he gave up the place he buried his wife he would probably be realeased by now as he has been a model prisoner.
Just imagine if he has not killed her, he will not know where her body is and therefore will probably never be released.
Juries have their own dynamic but I suspect there was more to the story than you have just laid out otherwise I don’t think there would have been a conviction
This is a thought process we are all guilty of - ah, it is probably more complicated than it looks, lets move on. Juries are not infallible, there are lots of dodgy convictions.
There are positives and negatives to this. On the one hand, the law will motivate murderers to reveal what actually happened after they have given up on appealing their convictions, but this is at the expense of the genuinely innocent who get a defacto whole life sentence, unless they give a false confession or make up a story about where the body is in order to eventually get out of jail.
I would argue that the negatives outweigh the positives, but it was clearly a politically irresistable law. There will be lots of perverse and unfair outcomes.
It's the sort of law our politicians are supposed to resist calls for.
Only because he thinks Prince Charles is pushing climate change too hard (as he thinks are William and Harry). Hence Fox can never be a Tory or British conservative because he does not support our constitutional monarchy, all he can ever be is an extreme libertarian anti wokeist.
However given Khan won the London Mayoralty as the Labour candidate pushing action on climate change hard and Shaun Bailey as the Conservative candidate, also pro action on climate change, got 893,051 votes to just 47,634 for Fox as the Reclaim candidate it is pretty clear which route is more successful.
Should Truss be kicked out of the conservative party then?
Truss has never on a Conservative platform called for a republic, the only time she did so was in her youth at a Liberal Democrat conference when she was still a LD.
If she started calling for a republic on a Tory platform then yes I would have serious reservations about her staying a Minister or even being allowed to remain a Tory MP. Her private views are her own, if she is still a republican 'a don't ask, don't tell' policy for her in terms of her views on the monarchy are fine by me as long as she does not start to push republicanism in public
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
Being a republican is incompatible with being a Tory. Support for constitutional monarchy has always been a defining feature of British Toryism.
Belief in the free market and small state for example is shared with Orange Book LDs and indeed Tories have often been protectionist and big government like Boris. Belief in Brexit was shared with UKIP and the Brexit Party, however the Tories have often been pro EU like Heath and still some Remainers who accept Brexit are in the Tories today. However support for constitutional monarchy and inherited wealth is what has defined Toryism and the Conservative Party and what almost all Tories have always agreed on
How many Tories do you think there are who define themselves as the party of the Monarchy, Church of England, landed gentry and inherited wealth?
I have this horrible feeling that there might actually be a lot more than I think there are.
And I am struggling to think of why any of those subjects should be top of anyone's list of priorities, in particular 'landed gentry'. I mean why landed gentry? I would have thought (depending upon your outlook) it would have been things like free markets, organised labour, poverty, constitution, NHS, the environment, capitalism, nationalisation, nationalism, etc, etc, etc)
I think that quite a few are very sympathetic to such things. You can go through a drive through rural Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, and see village after village with Church of England primary schools, attractive big houses, where the Conservatives win 75%+ of the vote.
That said, I don't support HYUFD's rather narrow definition of conservatism.
And do you think those 75% are thinking "landed gentry" when they cast their votes?
Totally O/T, I see Glyn Razzell has had his parole request turned down under Helen's Law as he would not identify where he buried his wife's body as he continues to plead his innocence and states he does not know where she is.
This is truly one of the oddest cases in legal history as there is no evidence that his wife is in fact dead. The only thing that convicted him was that police found her blood in a car he was using, but only found it on their third look. They had it for four days on the 2nd time they looked and returned the car to the owner, who then had it valetted due to the state the police left it in with fingerprint powder everywhere. When they took it in for the third time they found a few bloodspots that was visible to the naked eye in the boot. There is no explanation as to how the police missed these in their first 2 looks. No other DNA from his wife was found.
No one saw him abduct her from a busy Swindon street, none of the 25 CCTV cameras videoed his vehicle on his drive to the abduction site, and none videoed him on his drive to whereever he buried her. His neighbour confirmed that the vehicle was on Razell's driveway just 45 minutes after the alleged abduction.
Razzell also provided a decent alibi to the police. He claimed to have walked by a police station at the time of the abduction which had numerous CCTV cameras that would have videoed him. All were out of order (which Razzell would not have known).
If he gave up the place he buried his wife he would probably be realeased by now as he has been a model prisoner.
Just imagine if he has not killed her, he will not know where her body is and therefore will probably never be released.
Juries have their own dynamic but I suspect there was more to the story than you have just laid out otherwise I don’t think there would have been a conviction
This is a thought process we are all guilty of - ah, it is probably more complicated than it looks, lets move on. Juries are not infallible, there are lots of dodgy convictions.
There are positives and negatives to this. On the one hand, the law will motivate murderers to reveal what actually happened after they have given up on appealing their convictions, but this is at the expense of the genuinely innocent who get a defacto whole life sentence, unless they give a false confession or make up a story about where the body is in order to eventually get out of jail.
I would argue that the negatives outweigh the positives, but it was clearly a politically irresistable law. There will be lots of perverse and unfair outcomes.
Making up a story about where the body is would be hard as I’m fairly certain someone would check.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Only if the two tribes refuse to breed with each other…
I have seen polls posted on here that claim Democrats are very reluctant to mate with Trump supporters
Terds is the term, maybe? Trumpite exclusionary radical democrats
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Only if the two tribes refuse to breed with each other…
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Evolution is a ruthlessly eugenic process; it is more the differential extermination of the unfit than the survival of the fit. Characteristics are preserved and transmitted only by individuals who survive to adulthood, and breed. We all survive to adulthood these days because Our Wonderful NHS so that filter goes out of the window. That leaves breeding, so if we are evolving at all it should be in the direction of being sexier, more prolific etc. Even that doesn't work very well because there is no marked imbalance of the sexes, here at any rate.
If there's any marginal evolution left for humans in the west it's towards the religious whilst the secular majority seem to be steadily giving up on reproduction.
Only because he thinks Prince Charles is pushing climate change too hard (as he thinks are William and Harry). Hence Fox can never be a Tory or British conservative because he does not support our constitutional monarchy, all he can ever be is an extreme libertarian anti wokeist.
However given Khan won the London Mayoralty as the Labour candidate pushing action on climate change hard and Shaun Bailey as the Conservative candidate, also pro action on climate change, got 893,051 votes to just 47,634 for Fox as the Reclaim candidate it is pretty clear which route is more successful.
Should Truss be kicked out of the conservative party then?
Truss has never on a Conservative platform called for a republic, the only time she did so was in her youth at a Liberal Democrat conference when she was still a LD.
If she started calling for a republic on a Tory platform then yes I would have serious reservations about her staying a Minister or even being allowed to remain a Tory MP. Her private views are her own, if she is still a republican 'a don't ask, don't tell' policy for her in terms of her views on the monarchy are fine by me as long as she does not start to push republicanism in public
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
Being a republican is incompatible with being a Tory. Support for constitutional monarchy has always been a defining feature of British Toryism.
Belief in the free market and small state for example is shared with Orange Book LDs and indeed Tories have often been protectionist and big government like Boris. Belief in Brexit was shared with UKIP and the Brexit Party, however the Tories have often been pro EU like Heath and still some Remainers who accept Brexit are in the Tories today. However support for constitutional monarchy and inherited wealth is what has defined Toryism and the Conservative Party and what almost all Tories have always agreed on
How many Tories do you think there are who define themselves as the party of the Monarchy, Church of England, landed gentry and inherited wealth?
I have this horrible feeling that there might actually be a lot more than I think there are.
And I am struggling to think of why any of those subjects should be top of anyone's list of priorities, in particular 'landed gentry'. I mean why landed gentry? I would have thought (depending upon your outlook) it would have been things like free markets, organised labour, poverty, constitution, NHS, the environment, capitalism, nationalisation, nationalism, etc, etc, etc)
Someone said that Evelyn Waugh was one of the many members of the Einglkish middle classes who regard themselves as landed gentry in the eyes of God. I think there's a lot of that about still.
It's at times like this I thank God I'm Skotlikish.
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
That's neither reasonable nor pragmatic! He's literally talking about cancelling views he doesn't agree with and purging people who hold them. HYUFD is a Stalinist nightmare of a politician and almost everyone, Conservatives included, would fail his ridiculous purity tests.
I'm not entirely convinced that HYUFD is genuine. Would a party office-holder really go out of his way to drive sympathisers away from the party and urge them to vote Labour, or talk of "cancelling" people (surely the kind of language that right-wingers accuse lefties of using)? He's often interesting and well-informed on polling, and always polite, but politically he doesn't seem quite credible - but no offence if that's how he really feels.
Was talking to a lurker the other day who was saying much the same. Can't be real. Also seems, for a youngish person, to have a lot of time to comment here.
He is an elected official of the party
So are his duties that light that he can spend the time here he does?
I'm retired, and find plenty of other things to do, especially when there's cricket or Rugby League to watch!
Town Councils are serious business I have you know
Thornaby Town Council was a serious joke. Still is. As was neighbouring Billingham (a financial black hole with zero oversight) and Yarm (two rival groups of ex-Tory independents literally fighting in council meetings).
I'd abolish that whole tier in a heartbeat.
Town and parish councils are the closest layer of local government to most market towns and villages and arguably most relevant to what goes on there.
Indeed in some unitary councils like Buckinghamshire and Cornwall the old district councils have been abolished and the town and parish councils are the only layer of local government before the unitary councils (which have effectively replaced the old county councils there)
I know that there are some big ones. But from my experience they are the most remote from what goes on in towns and villages.
A council. Sometimes "elected" uncontested with no election. With no standards oversight of any practical description. Able to collect any amount of money they like via the precept. Which they can then spend on bonkers with no interest or oversight or due diligence.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
At some point, millions of years ago, a few pieces of stinking slime crawled from the Sea and shouted to the Heavens "I am Man!"
Very depressed to hear on the radio this morning that this COP26 thing is going on for 12 days. I'm already bored of hearing what such important voices as Archbishops think will be a good result from the conference.
Thank goodness we're on the verge of war with the Frogs to keep things at least slightly interesting!
So about diplomacy.. It comes to English in the late 18C, (unsurprisingly) from the French diplomatie, formed from diplomate the same way aristocratie was from aristocrate. The French diplomate was from Modern Latin diplomaticus, which game from the genitive case diplomatis of diploma - an official document.
This was from Ancient Greek δίπλωμα, which means "twice folded thing" and was the word for an official document, but also for the parallel streams of the milky way, the foetal position, or a double pot for boiling unguents.
In modern Greek δίπλωμα has the common modern meaning of diploma in English, but still retains its 'double folded' sense, meaning "the folding of, say, a map - especially in half".
Let's hope these holders of double folded official documents don't act like climate diplodocuses! (diplodocus - means 'double beamed' which is (surprisingly to me) nothing to with its long neck, and is to do with the shape of chevron bones in the tail)
In some old novels, the word "diplomat" is rendered as "diplomatist", which is an arrestingly ugly word for reasons I can't quite fathom.
Sounds more like someone who discriminates against those without proof of education
The format and structure of this conference makes pretty clear it's purpose is to make everyone involved feel important. If they wanted to achieve anything they wouldn't design them like this.
I think they've already achieved a lot before the conference even began.
How many countries now have committed to Net Zero in the build-up to COP26? Even the USA and China have.
Whether it happens or not is a different matter, but getting those committments is a major thing that shouldn't be overlooked.
If we can get to Net Zero via technology in 2050 then that's great and the end of the matter as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less if that means 1.5 or we miss 1.5 and hit 1.7 or 1.8 or any other number.
Considering we're supposedly at 1.2 already, this "keep 1.5 alive" seems rather irrelevant to be honest other than spin, we're talking only 0.3 from here to get to that.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Only if the two tribes refuse to breed with each other…
Only because he thinks Prince Charles is pushing climate change too hard (as he thinks are William and Harry). Hence Fox can never be a Tory or British conservative because he does not support our constitutional monarchy, all he can ever be is an extreme libertarian anti wokeist.
However given Khan won the London Mayoralty as the Labour candidate pushing action on climate change hard and Shaun Bailey as the Conservative candidate, also pro action on climate change, got 893,051 votes to just 47,634 for Fox as the Reclaim candidate it is pretty clear which route is more successful.
Should Truss be kicked out of the conservative party then?
Truss has never on a Conservative platform called for a republic, the only time she did so was in her youth at a Liberal Democrat conference when she was still a LD.
If she started calling for a republic on a Tory platform then yes I would have serious reservations about her staying a Minister or even being allowed to remain a Tory MP. Her private views are her own, if she is still a republican 'a don't ask, don't tell' policy for her in terms of her views on the monarchy are fine by me as long as she does not start to push republicanism in public
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
Being a republican is incompatible with being a Tory. Support for constitutional monarchy has always been a defining feature of British Toryism.
Belief in the free market and small state for example is shared with Orange Book LDs and indeed Tories have often been protectionist and big government like Boris. Belief in Brexit was shared with UKIP and the Brexit Party, however the Tories have often been pro EU like Heath and still some Remainers who accept Brexit are in the Tories today. However support for constitutional monarchy and inherited wealth is what has defined Toryism and the Conservative Party and what almost all Tories have always agreed on
How many Tories do you think there are who define themselves as the party of the Monarchy, Church of England, landed gentry and inherited wealth?
I have this horrible feeling that there might actually be a lot more than I think there are.
And I am struggling to think of why any of those subjects should be top of anyone's list of priorities, in particular 'landed gentry'. I mean why landed gentry? I would have thought (depending upon your outlook) it would have been things like free markets, organised labour, poverty, constitution, NHS, the environment, capitalism, nationalisation, nationalism, etc, etc, etc)
I think that quite a few are very sympathetic to such things. You can go through a drive through rural Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, and see village after village with Church of England primary schools, attractive big houses, where the Conservatives win 75%+ of the vote.
That said, I don't support HYUFD's rather narrow definition of conservatism.
And do you think those 75% are thinking "landed gentry" when they cast their votes?
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
At some point, millions of years ago, a few pieces of stinking slime crawled from the Sea and shouted to the Heavens "I am Man!"
Then promptly joined the Epping Forest Conservative Association.
Only because he thinks Prince Charles is pushing climate change too hard (as he thinks are William and Harry). Hence Fox can never be a Tory or British conservative because he does not support our constitutional monarchy, all he can ever be is an extreme libertarian anti wokeist.
However given Khan won the London Mayoralty as the Labour candidate pushing action on climate change hard and Shaun Bailey as the Conservative candidate, also pro action on climate change, got 893,051 votes to just 47,634 for Fox as the Reclaim candidate it is pretty clear which route is more successful.
Should Truss be kicked out of the conservative party then?
Truss has never on a Conservative platform called for a republic, the only time she did so was in her youth at a Liberal Democrat conference when she was still a LD.
If she started calling for a republic on a Tory platform then yes I would have serious reservations about her staying a Minister or even being allowed to remain a Tory MP. Her private views are her own, if she is still a republican 'a don't ask, don't tell' policy for her in terms of her views on the monarchy are fine by me as long as she does not start to push republicanism in public
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
Being a republican is incompatible with being a Tory. Support for constitutional monarchy has always been a defining feature of British Toryism.
Belief in the free market and small state for example is shared with Orange Book LDs and indeed Tories have often been protectionist and big government like Boris. Belief in Brexit was shared with UKIP and the Brexit Party, however the Tories have often been pro EU like Heath and still some Remainers who accept Brexit are in the Tories today. However support for constitutional monarchy and inherited wealth is what has defined Toryism and the Conservative Party and what almost all Tories have always agreed on
How many Tories do you think there are who define themselves as the party of the Monarchy, Church of England, landed gentry and inherited wealth?
I have this horrible feeling that there might actually be a lot more than I think there are.
And I am struggling to think of why any of those subjects should be top of anyone's list of priorities, in particular 'landed gentry'. I mean why landed gentry? I would have thought (depending upon your outlook) it would have been things like free markets, organised labour, poverty, constitution, NHS, the environment, capitalism, nationalisation, nationalism, etc, etc, etc)
I think that quite a few are very sympathetic to such things. You can go through a drive through rural Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, and see village after village with Church of England primary schools, attractive big houses, where the Conservatives win 75%+ of the vote.
That said, I don't support HYUFD's rather narrow definition of conservatism.
And do you think those 75% are thinking "landed gentry" when they cast their votes?
They certainly support inherited wealth as the landed gentry did and still do and the vast majority will also be monarchists as well
Brillo has widened his portfolio of competence to include being un expert en pêche. Nice try Andra, but everyone's still splitting their sides over your GB News debacle.
Not really Brillo is right here.
Jersey know (heck I know my first reference on here to this exact issue is months old) there is a set of boats that have been overfishing but was never able to identify them as they intentionally avoided tracking and paperwork.
Sadly they now need evidence to demonstrate that they have the right to fish there which they don't have for reasons in the previous paragraph.
This whole thing is a bit weird. Everyone who wants to fish anywhere is supposed to have a quota to do so. This means the relevant authority must have a record of who is permitted to fish in a place. Should be a quick job of checking who is on the quota list.
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
That's neither reasonable nor pragmatic! He's literally talking about cancelling views he doesn't agree with and purging people who hold them. HYUFD is a Stalinist nightmare of a politician and almost everyone, Conservatives included, would fail his ridiculous purity tests.
I'm not entirely convinced that HYUFD is genuine. Would a party office-holder really go out of his way to drive sympathisers away from the party and urge them to vote Labour, or talk of "cancelling" people (surely the kind of language that right-wingers accuse lefties of using)? He's often interesting and well-informed on polling, and always polite, but politically he doesn't seem quite credible - but no offence if that's how he really feels.
Was talking to a lurker the other day who was saying much the same. Can't be real. Also seems, for a youngish person, to have a lot of time to comment here.
He is an elected official of the party
So are his duties that light that he can spend the time here he does?
I'm retired, and find plenty of other things to do, especially when there's cricket or Rugby League to watch!
Town Councils are serious business I have you know
Thornaby Town Council was a serious joke. Still is. As was neighbouring Billingham (a financial black hole with zero oversight) and Yarm (two rival groups of ex-Tory independents literally fighting in council meetings).
I'd abolish that whole tier in a heartbeat.
Town and parish councils are the closest layer of local government to most market towns and villages and arguably most relevant to what goes on there.
Indeed in some unitary councils like Buckinghamshire and Cornwall the old district councils have been abolished and the town and parish councils are the only layer of local government before the unitary councils (which have effectively replaced the old county councils there)
I know that there are some big ones. But from my experience they are the most remote from what goes on in towns and villages.
A council. Sometimes "elected" uncontested with no election. With no standards oversight of any practical description. Able to collect any amount of money they like via the precept. Which they can then spend on bonkers with no interest or oversight or due diligence.
I only recall one election, and that a by-election, for the Parish Council in the district where I live now, and have for 20 years. However in my former home elections to the Parish (equivalent) Council are keenly contested.
Very depressed to hear on the radio this morning that this COP26 thing is going on for 12 days. I'm already bored of hearing what such important voices as Archbishops think will be a good result from the conference.
Thank goodness we're on the verge of war with the Frogs to keep things at least slightly interesting!
So about diplomacy.. It comes to English in the late 18C, (unsurprisingly) from the French diplomatie, formed from diplomate the same way aristocratie was from aristocrate. The French diplomate was from Modern Latin diplomaticus, which game from the genitive case diplomatis of diploma - an official document.
This was from Ancient Greek δίπλωμα, which means "twice folded thing" and was the word for an official document, but also for the parallel streams of the milky way, the foetal position, or a double pot for boiling unguents.
In modern Greek δίπλωμα has the common modern meaning of diploma in English, but still retains its 'double folded' sense, meaning "the folding of, say, a map - especially in half".
Let's hope these holders of double folded official documents don't act like climate diplodocuses! (diplodocus - means 'double beamed' which is (surprisingly to me) nothing to with its long neck, and is to do with the shape of chevron bones in the tail)
In some old novels, the word "diplomat" is rendered as "diplomatist", which is an arrestingly ugly word for reasons I can't quite fathom.
Brillo has widened his portfolio of competence to include being un expert en pêche. Nice try Andra, but everyone's still splitting their sides over your GB News debacle.
Not really Brillo is right here.
Jersey know (heck I know my first reference on here to this exact issue is months old) there is a set of boats that have been overfishing but was never able to identify them as they intentionally avoided tracking and paperwork.
Sadly they now need evidence to demonstrate that they have the right to fish there which they don't have for reasons in the previous paragraph.
This whole thing is a bit weird. Everyone who wants to fish anywhere is supposed to have a quota to do so. This means the relevant authority must have a record of who is permitted to fish in a place. Should be a quick job of checking who is on the quota list.
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
That's neither reasonable nor pragmatic! He's literally talking about cancelling views he doesn't agree with and purging people who hold them. HYUFD is a Stalinist nightmare of a politician and almost everyone, Conservatives included, would fail his ridiculous purity tests.
I'm not entirely convinced that HYUFD is genuine. Would a party office-holder really go out of his way to drive sympathisers away from the party and urge them to vote Labour, or talk of "cancelling" people (surely the kind of language that right-wingers accuse lefties of using)? He's often interesting and well-informed on polling, and always polite, but politically he doesn't seem quite credible - but no offence if that's how he really feels.
Was talking to a lurker the other day who was saying much the same. Can't be real. Also seems, for a youngish person, to have a lot of time to comment here.
He is an elected official of the party
So are his duties that light that he can spend the time here he does?
I'm retired, and find plenty of other things to do, especially when there's cricket or Rugby League to watch!
Town Councils are serious business I have you know
Thornaby Town Council was a serious joke. Still is. As was neighbouring Billingham (a financial black hole with zero oversight) and Yarm (two rival groups of ex-Tory independents literally fighting in council meetings).
I'd abolish that whole tier in a heartbeat.
Town and parish councils are the closest layer of local government to most market towns and villages and arguably most relevant to what goes on there.
Indeed in some unitary councils like Buckinghamshire and Cornwall the old district councils have been abolished and the town and parish councils are the only layer of local government before the unitary councils (which have effectively replaced the old county councils there)
I know that there are some big ones. But from my experience they are the most remote from what goes on in towns and villages.
A council. Sometimes "elected" uncontested with no election. With no standards oversight of any practical description. Able to collect any amount of money they like via the precept. Which they can then spend on bonkers with no interest or oversight or due diligence.
It is the town council and parish council which runs the local market, the local fete and town show, remembrance parades, the local public toilets, allotments, recreation and playgrounds, cemeteries and has the first stage input into local licensing and planning applications.
They are very relevant to local life, especially if you only live in a village or small town and are based in that village or town. Certainly they are more directly connected than a unitary council based in a city or the county town on the other side of the county.
Most town council elections are contested by all parties, some parish council elections in villages are uncontested with local independents winning but then again much of their work is not party political but for the good of the local community
Brillo has widened his portfolio of competence to include being un expert en pêche. Nice try Andra, but everyone's still splitting their sides over your GB News debacle.
Not really Brillo is right here.
Jersey know (heck I know my first reference on here to this exact issue is months old) there is a set of boats that have been overfishing but was never able to identify them as they intentionally avoided tracking and paperwork.
Sadly they now need evidence to demonstrate that they have the right to fish there which they don't have for reasons in the previous paragraph.
This whole thing is a bit weird. Everyone who wants to fish anywhere is supposed to have a quota to do so. This means the relevant authority must have a record of who is permitted to fish in a place. Should be a quick job of checking who is on the quota list.
What am I missing?
My personal guesstimate is that previously, there was no/not enough checking.
When the licensing system came in, the people at the Jersey licensing authority asked for what seemed (to them) a reasonable amount of evidence of fishing legally. So they could convert that into formal licenses....
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
That's neither reasonable nor pragmatic! He's literally talking about cancelling views he doesn't agree with and purging people who hold them. HYUFD is a Stalinist nightmare of a politician and almost everyone, Conservatives included, would fail his ridiculous purity tests.
I'm not entirely convinced that HYUFD is genuine. Would a party office-holder really go out of his way to drive sympathisers away from the party and urge them to vote Labour, or talk of "cancelling" people (surely the kind of language that right-wingers accuse lefties of using)? He's often interesting and well-informed on polling, and always polite, but politically he doesn't seem quite credible - but no offence if that's how he really feels.
Was talking to a lurker the other day who was saying much the same. Can't be real. Also seems, for a youngish person, to have a lot of time to comment here.
He is an elected official of the party
So are his duties that light that he can spend the time here he does?
I'm retired, and find plenty of other things to do, especially when there's cricket or Rugby League to watch!
Town Councils are serious business I have you know
Thornaby Town Council was a serious joke. Still is. As was neighbouring Billingham (a financial black hole with zero oversight) and Yarm (two rival groups of ex-Tory independents literally fighting in council meetings).
I'd abolish that whole tier in a heartbeat.
Town and parish councils are the closest layer of local government to most market towns and villages and arguably most relevant to what goes on there.
Indeed in some unitary councils like Buckinghamshire and Cornwall the old district councils have been abolished and the town and parish councils are the only layer of local government before the unitary councils (which have effectively replaced the old county councils there)
I know that there are some big ones. But from my experience they are the most remote from what goes on in towns and villages.
A council. Sometimes "elected" uncontested with no election. With no standards oversight of any practical description. Able to collect any amount of money they like via the precept. Which they can then spend on bonkers with no interest or oversight or due diligence.
I only recall one election, and that a by-election, for the Parish Council in the district where I live now, and have for 20 years. However in my former home elections to the Parish (equivalent) Council are keenly contested.
Some are, some aren't. And since the Standards Board was abolished responsibility for investigating wrongdoing by the council sits first with the council itself (investigating itself), then the big council (district, borough etc). Which in practice means short of open fraud they are a law unto themselves.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Evolution is a ruthlessly eugenic process; it is more the differential extermination of the unfit than the survival of the fit. Characteristics are preserved and transmitted only by individuals who survive to adulthood, and breed. We all survive to adulthood these days because Our Wonderful NHS so that filter goes out of the window. That leaves breeding, so if we are evolving at all it should be in the direction of being sexier, more prolific etc. Even that doesn't work very well because there is no marked imbalance of the sexes, here at any rate.
I'm not so sure.
I'm interested in species that somehow have managed to live long past the point when similar species went extinct, like hyenas, crocodiles, sturgeon, komodo dragons. Why did they survive? I think that simple chance had a lot to do with their survival.
Polygraphs (they are not lie detectors) are worthless, they're barely above 50%. If the coin toss had gone against him he would've looked guilty even though the machine is utterly without value.
How odd. I was going to link to a blog I wrote excoriating them and it doesn't appear to be around any more... well, I couldn't find it via Google, but here it is having manually sought it out and luckily guessed the right year.
Brillo has widened his portfolio of competence to include being un expert en pêche. Nice try Andra, but everyone's still splitting their sides over your GB News debacle.
Not really Brillo is right here.
Jersey know (heck I know my first reference on here to this exact issue is months old) there is a set of boats that have been overfishing but was never able to identify them as they intentionally avoided tracking and paperwork.
Sadly they now need evidence to demonstrate that they have the right to fish there which they don't have for reasons in the previous paragraph.
This whole thing is a bit weird. Everyone who wants to fish anywhere is supposed to have a quota to do so. This means the relevant authority must have a record of who is permitted to fish in a place. Should be a quick job of checking who is on the quota list.
What am I missing?
The fact that the French boats were fishing illegally. But employment in a depressed part of France depended on that. So Macron is trying to strong arm Jersey/the UK into permitting it
Very depressed to hear on the radio this morning that this COP26 thing is going on for 12 days. I'm already bored of hearing what such important voices as Archbishops think will be a good result from the conference.
Thank goodness we're on the verge of war with the Frogs to keep things at least slightly interesting!
So about diplomacy.. It comes to English in the late 18C, (unsurprisingly) from the French diplomatie, formed from diplomate the same way aristocratie was from aristocrate. The French diplomate was from Modern Latin diplomaticus, which game from the genitive case diplomatis of diploma - an official document.
This was from Ancient Greek δίπλωμα, which means "twice folded thing" and was the word for an official document, but also for the parallel streams of the milky way, the foetal position, or a double pot for boiling unguents.
In modern Greek δίπλωμα has the common modern meaning of diploma in English, but still retains its 'double folded' sense, meaning "the folding of, say, a map - especially in half".
Let's hope these holders of double folded official documents don't act like climate diplodocuses! (diplodocus - means 'double beamed' which is (surprisingly to me) nothing to with its long neck, and is to do with the shape of chevron bones in the tail)
In some old novels, the word "diplomat" is rendered as "diplomatist", which is an arrestingly ugly word for reasons I can't quite fathom.
I've seen diplomatistic too..
heave. there are some sick people out there who shouldn't be allowed to put pen to paper.
Sounds like the sort of thing Mary Poppins would say
To be fair, they have gathered in Scotland. He just happens to be in a different bit of it.
Edit to add: to Americans the 40 or so miles that he is out by might seem trivial.
Our own Philip Thompson would not understand. Great Scottish Central Desert separating the two (and admittedly, what is much worse, what sauce to put on chips if any).
Very depressed to hear on the radio this morning that this COP26 thing is going on for 12 days. I'm already bored of hearing what such important voices as Archbishops think will be a good result from the conference.
Thank goodness we're on the verge of war with the Frogs to keep things at least slightly interesting!
So about diplomacy.. It comes to English in the late 18C, (unsurprisingly) from the French diplomatie, formed from diplomate the same way aristocratie was from aristocrate. The French diplomate was from Modern Latin diplomaticus, which game from the genitive case diplomatis of diploma - an official document.
This was from Ancient Greek δίπλωμα, which means "twice folded thing" and was the word for an official document, but also for the parallel streams of the milky way, the foetal position, or a double pot for boiling unguents.
In modern Greek δίπλωμα has the common modern meaning of diploma in English, but still retains its 'double folded' sense, meaning "the folding of, say, a map - especially in half".
Let's hope these holders of double folded official documents don't act like climate diplodocuses! (diplodocus - means 'double beamed' which is (surprisingly to me) nothing to with its long neck, and is to do with the shape of chevron bones in the tail)
In some old novels, the word "diplomat" is rendered as "diplomatist", which is an arrestingly ugly word for reasons I can't quite fathom.
Sounds more like someone who discriminates against those without proof of education
I quite like bicyclist and vegetableist, which seem to fit some.
To be fair, they have gathered in Scotland. He just happens to be in a different bit of it.
Edit to add: to Americans the 40 or so miles that he is out by might seem trivial.
Our own Philip Thompson would not understand. Great Scottish Central Desert separating the two (and admittedly, what is much worse, what sauce to put on chips if any).
I’ll be more impressed if he can pronounce Edinburgh.
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
That's neither reasonable nor pragmatic! He's literally talking about cancelling views he doesn't agree with and purging people who hold them. HYUFD is a Stalinist nightmare of a politician and almost everyone, Conservatives included, would fail his ridiculous purity tests.
I'm not entirely convinced that HYUFD is genuine. Would a party office-holder really go out of his way to drive sympathisers away from the party and urge them to vote Labour, or talk of "cancelling" people (surely the kind of language that right-wingers accuse lefties of using)? He's often interesting and well-informed on polling, and always polite, but politically he doesn't seem quite credible - but no offence if that's how he really feels.
Was talking to a lurker the other day who was saying much the same. Can't be real. Also seems, for a youngish person, to have a lot of time to comment here.
He is an elected official of the party
So are his duties that light that he can spend the time here he does?
I'm retired, and find plenty of other things to do, especially when there's cricket or Rugby League to watch!
Town Councils are serious business I have you know
Thornaby Town Council was a serious joke. Still is. As was neighbouring Billingham (a financial black hole with zero oversight) and Yarm (two rival groups of ex-Tory independents literally fighting in council meetings).
I'd abolish that whole tier in a heartbeat.
Town and parish councils are the closest layer of local government to most market towns and villages and arguably most relevant to what goes on there.
Indeed in some unitary councils like Buckinghamshire and Cornwall the old district councils have been abolished and the town and parish councils are the only layer of local government before the unitary councils (which have effectively replaced the old county councils there)
I know that there are some big ones. But from my experience they are the most remote from what goes on in towns and villages.
A council. Sometimes "elected" uncontested with no election. With no standards oversight of any practical description. Able to collect any amount of money they like via the precept. Which they can then spend on bonkers with no interest or oversight or due diligence.
It is the town council and parish council which runs the local market, the local fete and town show, remembrance parades, the local public toilets, allotments, recreation and playgrounds, cemeteries and has the first stage input into local licensing and planning applications.
They are very relevant to local life, especially if you only live in a village or small town and are based in that village or town. Certainly they are more directly connected than a unitary council based in a city or the county town on the other side of the county.
Most town council elections are contested by all parties, some parish council elections in villages are uncontested with local independents winning but then again much of their work is not party political but for the good of the local community
Yours might be. Teesside's town councils are responsible for dog poo bins. Everything else you mention is the borough council not the town council.
Appreciate that some are bigger - IIRC Salisbury is run by a council in this tier. But many were accurately portrayed on the Vicar of Dibley.
Very depressed to hear on the radio this morning that this COP26 thing is going on for 12 days. I'm already bored of hearing what such important voices as Archbishops think will be a good result from the conference.
Thank goodness we're on the verge of war with the Frogs to keep things at least slightly interesting!
So about diplomacy.. It comes to English in the late 18C, (unsurprisingly) from the French diplomatie, formed from diplomate the same way aristocratie was from aristocrate. The French diplomate was from Modern Latin diplomaticus, which game from the genitive case diplomatis of diploma - an official document.
This was from Ancient Greek δίπλωμα, which means "twice folded thing" and was the word for an official document, but also for the parallel streams of the milky way, the foetal position, or a double pot for boiling unguents.
In modern Greek δίπλωμα has the common modern meaning of diploma in English, but still retains its 'double folded' sense, meaning "the folding of, say, a map - especially in half".
Let's hope these holders of double folded official documents don't act like climate diplodocuses! (diplodocus - means 'double beamed' which is (surprisingly to me) nothing to with its long neck, and is to do with the shape of chevron bones in the tail)
In some old novels, the word "diplomat" is rendered as "diplomatist", which is an arrestingly ugly word for reasons I can't quite fathom.
Sounds more like someone who discriminates against those without proof of education
I quite like bicyclist and vegetableist, which seem to fit some.
Reminds me of the 1970s/80s and Auberon Waugh writing, in pretend indignation, about homosexualists and their doings (as if they did it deliberately to epater him).
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
We could call them Eloi and Morlocks? They'd only fork with their own.
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
That's neither reasonable nor pragmatic! He's literally talking about cancelling views he doesn't agree with and purging people who hold them. HYUFD is a Stalinist nightmare of a politician and almost everyone, Conservatives included, would fail his ridiculous purity tests.
I'm not entirely convinced that HYUFD is genuine. Would a party office-holder really go out of his way to drive sympathisers away from the party and urge them to vote Labour, or talk of "cancelling" people (surely the kind of language that right-wingers accuse lefties of using)? He's often interesting and well-informed on polling, and always polite, but politically he doesn't seem quite credible - but no offence if that's how he really feels.
Was talking to a lurker the other day who was saying much the same. Can't be real. Also seems, for a youngish person, to have a lot of time to comment here.
He is an elected official of the party
So are his duties that light that he can spend the time here he does?
I'm retired, and find plenty of other things to do, especially when there's cricket or Rugby League to watch!
Town Councils are serious business I have you know
Thornaby Town Council was a serious joke. Still is. As was neighbouring Billingham (a financial black hole with zero oversight) and Yarm (two rival groups of ex-Tory independents literally fighting in council meetings).
I'd abolish that whole tier in a heartbeat.
Town and parish councils are the closest layer of local government to most market towns and villages and arguably most relevant to what goes on there.
Indeed in some unitary councils like Buckinghamshire and Cornwall the old district councils have been abolished and the town and parish councils are the only layer of local government before the unitary councils (which have effectively replaced the old county councils there)
I know that there are some big ones. But from my experience they are the most remote from what goes on in towns and villages.
A council. Sometimes "elected" uncontested with no election. With no standards oversight of any practical description. Able to collect any amount of money they like via the precept. Which they can then spend on bonkers with no interest or oversight or due diligence.
It is the town council and parish council which runs the local market, the local fete and town show, remembrance parades, the local public toilets, allotments, recreation and playgrounds, cemeteries and has the first stage input into local licensing and planning applications.
They are very relevant to local life, especially if you only live in a village or small town and are based in that village or town. Certainly they are more directly connected than a unitary council based in a city or the county town on the other side of the county.
Most town council elections are contested by all parties, some parish council elections in villages are uncontested with local independents winning but then again much of their work is not party political but for the good of the local community
Yours might be. Teesside's town councils are responsible for dog poo bins. Everything else you mention is the borough council not the town council.
Appreciate that some are bigger - IIRC Salisbury is run by a council in this tier. But many were accurately portrayed on the Vicar of Dibley.
Of course the more borough and district and county councils get abolished and replaced by unitary councils, the more influential town and parish councils will be. As unitaries will do what the old county councils did and most but not all of what the old district and boroughs did with the town and parish councils doing the rest
Brillo has widened his portfolio of competence to include being un expert en pêche. Nice try Andra, but everyone's still splitting their sides over your GB News debacle.
Not really Brillo is right here.
Jersey know (heck I know my first reference on here to this exact issue is months old) there is a set of boats that have been overfishing but was never able to identify them as they intentionally avoided tracking and paperwork.
Sadly they now need evidence to demonstrate that they have the right to fish there which they don't have for reasons in the previous paragraph.
This whole thing is a bit weird. Everyone who wants to fish anywhere is supposed to have a quota to do so. This means the relevant authority must have a record of who is permitted to fish in a place. Should be a quick job of checking who is on the quota list.
What am I missing?
Anyone bothering to actually check?
I think that is probably a good point.
I would compare it to the requirements to travel re Covid. Many of the testing providers of day 2 and 8 tests turned out to be either incompetent or crooks. I know so many who haven't received their tests, but because they have received the reference for the PLF when they applied they get back into the country. I can't believe any then organise another test. In fact they wouldn't be able to and hit the Day 2 deadline. Nobody cares.
However what happens in the future if suddenly you have to produce the result of the test for some other reason?
I think a lot commenting on this with no personal expertise or experience fail to understand there is a big difference between theory and real life.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Speciation is one of the hardest parts of evolutionary theory to explain, because to survive a species has to procreate a lot, but to split into two species you have to prevent two populations of one species from procreating with each other for a long time.
The secret ballot will be enough to prevent speciation from happening.
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
That's neither reasonable nor pragmatic! He's literally talking about cancelling views he doesn't agree with and purging people who hold them. HYUFD is a Stalinist nightmare of a politician and almost everyone, Conservatives included, would fail his ridiculous purity tests.
I'm not entirely convinced that HYUFD is genuine. Would a party office-holder really go out of his way to drive sympathisers away from the party and urge them to vote Labour, or talk of "cancelling" people (surely the kind of language that right-wingers accuse lefties of using)? He's often interesting and well-informed on polling, and always polite, but politically he doesn't seem quite credible - but no offence if that's how he really feels.
Was talking to a lurker the other day who was saying much the same. Can't be real. Also seems, for a youngish person, to have a lot of time to comment here.
He is an elected official of the party
So are his duties that light that he can spend the time here he does?
I'm retired, and find plenty of other things to do, especially when there's cricket or Rugby League to watch!
Town Councils are serious business I have you know
Thornaby Town Council was a serious joke. Still is. As was neighbouring Billingham (a financial black hole with zero oversight) and Yarm (two rival groups of ex-Tory independents literally fighting in council meetings).
I'd abolish that whole tier in a heartbeat.
Town and parish councils are the closest layer of local government to most market towns and villages and arguably most relevant to what goes on there.
Indeed in some unitary councils like Buckinghamshire and Cornwall the old district councils have been abolished and the town and parish councils are the only layer of local government before the unitary councils (which have effectively replaced the old county councils there)
I know that there are some big ones. But from my experience they are the most remote from what goes on in towns and villages.
A council. Sometimes "elected" uncontested with no election. With no standards oversight of any practical description. Able to collect any amount of money they like via the precept. Which they can then spend on bonkers with no interest or oversight or due diligence.
It is the town council and parish council which runs the local market, the local fete and town show, remembrance parades, the local public toilets, allotments, recreation and playgrounds, cemeteries and has the first stage input into local licensing and planning applications.
They are very relevant to local life, especially if you only live in a village or small town and are based in that village or town. Certainly they are more directly connected than a unitary council based in a city or the county town on the other side of the county.
Most town council elections are contested by all parties, some parish council elections in villages are uncontested with local independents winning but then again much of their work is not party political but for the good of the local community
Yours might be. Teesside's town councils are responsible for dog poo bins. Everything else you mention is the borough council not the town council.
Appreciate that some are bigger - IIRC Salisbury is run by a council in this tier. But many were accurately portrayed on the Vicar of Dibley.
Wasn't the Vicar of Dibley relating to the Parochial Church Council? Often, if nowadays incorrectly, referred to as the Parish Council, although once upon a time it was effectively the same thing.
"more than 1.1 million of Virginia’s 5.9 million registered voters had cast ballots as of Sunday morning, according to the Virginia Department of Elections."
To be fair, they have gathered in Scotland. He just happens to be in a different bit of it.
Edit to add: to Americans the 40 or so miles that he is out by might seem trivial.
I'm not surprised: 1. To many Americans, Scotland is Edinborrow. Show them a backdrop they can understand 2. Glasgow is full and overflowing. Edinburgh much easier to be in at the moment.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 11m As everyone laughs at Wold Blitzer it should be pointed out lots of attendees are having to stay in Edinburgh because there was insufficient hotel accommodation in Glasgow.
Only because he thinks Prince Charles is pushing climate change too hard (as he thinks are William and Harry). Hence Fox can never be a Tory or British conservative because he does not support our constitutional monarchy, all he can ever be is an extreme libertarian anti wokeist.
However given Khan won the London Mayoralty as the Labour candidate pushing action on climate change hard and Shaun Bailey as the Conservative candidate, also pro action on climate change, got 893,051 votes to just 47,634 for Fox as the Reclaim candidate it is pretty clear which route is more successful.
Should Truss be kicked out of the conservative party then?
Truss has never on a Conservative platform called for a republic, the only time she did so was in her youth at a Liberal Democrat conference when she was still a LD.
If she started calling for a republic on a Tory platform then yes I would have serious reservations about her staying a Minister or even being allowed to remain a Tory MP. Her private views are her own, if she is still a republican 'a don't ask, don't tell' policy for her in terms of her views on the monarchy are fine by me as long as she does not start to push republicanism in public
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
Being a republican is incompatible with being a Tory. Support for constitutional monarchy has always been a defining feature of British Toryism.
Belief in the free market and small state for example is shared with Orange Book LDs and indeed Tories have often been protectionist and big government like Boris. Belief in Brexit was shared with UKIP and the Brexit Party, however the Tories have often been pro EU like Heath and still some Remainers who accept Brexit are in the Tories today. However support for constitutional monarchy and inherited wealth is what has defined Toryism and the Conservative Party and what almost all Tories have always agreed on
How many Tories do you think there are who define themselves as the party of the Monarchy, Church of England, landed gentry and inherited wealth?
I have this horrible feeling that there might actually be a lot more than I think there are.
And I am struggling to think of why any of those subjects should be top of anyone's list of priorities, in particular 'landed gentry'. I mean why landed gentry? I would have thought (depending upon your outlook) it would have been things like free markets, organised labour, poverty, constitution, NHS, the environment, capitalism, nationalisation, nationalism, etc, etc, etc)
Someone said that Evelyn Waugh was one of the many members of the Einglkish middle classes who regard themselves as landed gentry in the eyes of God. I think there's a lot of that about still.
It's at times like this I thank God I'm Skotlikish.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) @ONS · 2h The age-adjusted risk of deaths involving #COVID19 was 32 times greater in unvaccinated people than in fully vaccinated individuals between 2 Jan and 24 Sept 2021 http://ow.ly/xaaY50GC9RH
Totally O/T, I see Glyn Razzell has had his parole request turned down under Helen's Law as he would not identify where he buried his wife's body as he continues to plead his innocence and states he does not know where she is.
This is truly one of the oddest cases in legal history as there is no evidence that his wife is in fact dead. The only thing that convicted him was that police found her blood in a car he was using, but only found it on their third look. They had it for four days on the 2nd time they looked and returned the car to the owner, who then had it valetted due to the state the police left it in with fingerprint powder everywhere. When they took it in for the third time they found a few bloodspots that was visible to the naked eye in the boot. There is no explanation as to how the police missed these in their first 2 looks. No other DNA from his wife was found.
No one saw him abduct her from a busy Swindon street, none of the 25 CCTV cameras videoed his vehicle on his drive to the abduction site, and none videoed him on his drive to whereever he buried her. His neighbour confirmed that the vehicle was on Razell's driveway just 45 minutes after the alleged abduction.
Razzell also provided a decent alibi to the police. He claimed to have walked by a police station at the time of the abduction which had numerous CCTV cameras that would have videoed him. All were out of order (which Razzell would not have known).
If he gave up the place he buried his wife he would probably be realeased by now as he has been a model prisoner.
Just imagine if he has not killed her, he will not know where her body is and therefore will probably never be released.
Juries have their own dynamic but I suspect there was more to the story than you have just laid out otherwise I don’t think there would have been a conviction
This is a thought process we are all guilty of - ah, it is probably more complicated than it looks, lets move on. Juries are not infallible, there are lots of dodgy convictions.
There are positives and negatives to this. On the one hand, the law will motivate murderers to reveal what actually happened after they have given up on appealing their convictions, but this is at the expense of the genuinely innocent who get a defacto whole life sentence, unless they give a false confession or make up a story about where the body is in order to eventually get out of jail.
I would argue that the negatives outweigh the positives, but it was clearly a politically irresistable law. There will be lots of perverse and unfair outcomes.
Making up a story about where the body is would be hard as I’m fairly certain someone would check.
Indeed, but there's presumably an out if you describe something that cannot be verified, such as dumped at sea, fed to the local crocodiles etc.
Of course, if the person subsequently turns up alive, would you then be liable for something? Perjury, possibly? (not sure of the legal weight of such a statement). Providing false information?
Would really suck to be wrongly imprisoned for murder, then imprisoned again for lying about where the body was when it turned out the person was in fact alive!
The format and structure of this conference makes pretty clear it's purpose is to make everyone involved feel important. If they wanted to achieve anything they wouldn't design them like this.
I think they've already achieved a lot before the conference even began.
How many countries now have committed to Net Zero in the build-up to COP26? Even the USA and China have.
Whether it happens or not is a different matter, but getting those committments is a major thing that shouldn't be overlooked.
If we can get to Net Zero via technology in 2050 then that's great and the end of the matter as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less if that means 1.5 or we miss 1.5 and hit 1.7 or 1.8 or any other number.
Considering we're supposedly at 1.2 already, this "keep 1.5 alive" seems rather irrelevant to be honest other than spin, we're talking only 0.3 from here to get to that.
Because of methane an overshoot scenario is not implausible, where global temperatures increase to above +1.5C, but reductions in methane emissions bring temperatures back down.
Totally O/T, I see Glyn Razzell has had his parole request turned down under Helen's Law as he would not identify where he buried his wife's body as he continues to plead his innocence and states he does not know where she is.
This is truly one of the oddest cases in legal history as there is no evidence that his wife is in fact dead. The only thing that convicted him was that police found her blood in a car he was using, but only found it on their third look. They had it for four days on the 2nd time they looked and returned the car to the owner, who then had it valetted due to the state the police left it in with fingerprint powder everywhere. When they took it in for the third time they found a few bloodspots that was visible to the naked eye in the boot. There is no explanation as to how the police missed these in their first 2 looks. No other DNA from his wife was found.
No one saw him abduct her from a busy Swindon street, none of the 25 CCTV cameras videoed his vehicle on his drive to the abduction site, and none videoed him on his drive to whereever he buried her. His neighbour confirmed that the vehicle was on Razell's driveway just 45 minutes after the alleged abduction.
Razzell also provided a decent alibi to the police. He claimed to have walked by a police station at the time of the abduction which had numerous CCTV cameras that would have videoed him. All were out of order (which Razzell would not have known).
If he gave up the place he buried his wife he would probably be realeased by now as he has been a model prisoner.
Just imagine if he has not killed her, he will not know where her body is and therefore will probably never be released.
Juries have their own dynamic but I suspect there was more to the story than you have just laid out otherwise I don’t think there would have been a conviction
This is a thought process we are all guilty of - ah, it is probably more complicated than it looks, lets move on. Juries are not infallible, there are lots of dodgy convictions.
There are positives and negatives to this. On the one hand, the law will motivate murderers to reveal what actually happened after they have given up on appealing their convictions, but this is at the expense of the genuinely innocent who get a defacto whole life sentence, unless they give a false confession or make up a story about where the body is in order to eventually get out of jail.
I would argue that the negatives outweigh the positives, but it was clearly a politically irresistable law. There will be lots of perverse and unfair outcomes.
Making up a story about where the body is would be hard as I’m fairly certain someone would check.
Indeed, but there's presumably an out if you describe something that cannot be verified, such as dumped at sea, fed to the local crocodiles etc.
Of course, if the person subsequently turns up alive, would you then be liable for something? Perjury, possibly? (not sure of the legal weight of such a statement). Providing false information?
Would really suck to be wrongly imprisoned for murder, then imprisoned again for lying about where the body was when it turned out the person was in fact alive!
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
At some point, millions of years ago, a few pieces of stinking slime crawled from the Sea and shouted to the Heavens "I am Man!"
Much more recently than that. And wasn't it "...Trump !" ?
Totally O/T, I see Glyn Razzell has had his parole request turned down under Helen's Law as he would not identify where he buried his wife's body as he continues to plead his innocence and states he does not know where she is.
This is truly one of the oddest cases in legal history as there is no evidence that his wife is in fact dead. The only thing that convicted him was that police found her blood in a car he was using, but only found it on their third look. They had it for four days on the 2nd time they looked and returned the car to the owner, who then had it valetted due to the state the police left it in with fingerprint powder everywhere. When they took it in for the third time they found a few bloodspots that was visible to the naked eye in the boot. There is no explanation as to how the police missed these in their first 2 looks. No other DNA from his wife was found.
No one saw him abduct her from a busy Swindon street, none of the 25 CCTV cameras videoed his vehicle on his drive to the abduction site, and none videoed him on his drive to whereever he buried her. His neighbour confirmed that the vehicle was on Razell's driveway just 45 minutes after the alleged abduction.
Razzell also provided a decent alibi to the police. He claimed to have walked by a police station at the time of the abduction which had numerous CCTV cameras that would have videoed him. All were out of order (which Razzell would not have known).
If he gave up the place he buried his wife he would probably be realeased by now as he has been a model prisoner.
Just imagine if he has not killed her, he will not know where her body is and therefore will probably never be released.
Juries have their own dynamic but I suspect there was more to the story than you have just laid out otherwise I don’t think there would have been a conviction
This is a thought process we are all guilty of - ah, it is probably more complicated than it looks, lets move on. Juries are not infallible, there are lots of dodgy convictions.
There are positives and negatives to this. On the one hand, the law will motivate murderers to reveal what actually happened after they have given up on appealing their convictions, but this is at the expense of the genuinely innocent who get a defacto whole life sentence, unless they give a false confession or make up a story about where the body is in order to eventually get out of jail.
I would argue that the negatives outweigh the positives, but it was clearly a politically irresistable law. There will be lots of perverse and unfair outcomes.
Making up a story about where the body is would be hard as I’m fairly certain someone would check.
Indeed, but there's presumably an out if you describe something that cannot be verified, such as dumped at sea, fed to the local crocodiles etc.
Of course, if the person subsequently turns up alive, would you then be liable for something? Perjury, possibly? (not sure of the legal weight of such a statement). Providing false information?
Would really suck to be wrongly imprisoned for murder, then imprisoned again for lying about where the body was when it turned out the person was in fact alive!
There's the Muriel McKay case, of course, where the body has never been found although it's generally assumed that she's dead.
Morning all, that's shocking data in the header, isn't it? Or maybe not, because I recall something similar on evolution. Lots of Republicans in the US don't believe in that either. And speaking of evolution, I think there may lie the answer.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Speciation is one of the hardest parts of evolutionary theory to explain, because to survive a species has to procreate a lot, but to split into two species you have to prevent two populations of one species from procreating with each other for a long time.
The secret ballot will be enough to prevent speciation from happening.
Yes, speciation almost always happens where there is a geographical separation. Often caused by some sort of climate change. And it takes a long, long, long time. The Asian populations who crossed the Bering straits to the Americas were separated from other humans for around 10,000 years, I think? (Including, ISTR, 1000 years for which they were marooned in an area the size of half a Canadian province which was surrounded by solid ice. That must have been one of pre-history's grimmer periods.) But this wasn't nearly enough for them to evolve into a separate species. Even the 40-60,000 years for which Australian aborigines were separated from the rest of humanity wasn't enough (though there, there was probably some contact between aborigines and melanesians).
The format and structure of this conference makes pretty clear it's purpose is to make everyone involved feel important. If they wanted to achieve anything they wouldn't design them like this.
Or the end result is already known (more done but no where near enough) so you may as well make everyone feel important and that they've achieved something.
Very depressed to hear on the radio this morning that this COP26 thing is going on for 12 days. I'm already bored of hearing what such important voices as Archbishops think will be a good result from the conference.
Thank goodness we're on the verge of war with the Frogs to keep things at least slightly interesting!
So about diplomacy.. It comes to English in the late 18C, (unsurprisingly) from the French diplomatie, formed from diplomate the same way aristocratie was from aristocrate. The French diplomate was from Modern Latin diplomaticus, which game from the genitive case diplomatis of diploma - an official document.
This was from Ancient Greek δίπλωμα, which means "twice folded thing" and was the word for an official document, but also for the parallel streams of the milky way, the foetal position, or a double pot for boiling unguents.
In modern Greek δίπλωμα has the common modern meaning of diploma in English, but still retains its 'double folded' sense, meaning "the folding of, say, a map - especially in half".
Let's hope these holders of double folded official documents don't act like climate diplodocuses! (diplodocus - means 'double beamed' which is (surprisingly to me) nothing to with its long neck, and is to do with the shape of chevron bones in the tail)
In some old novels, the word "diplomat" is rendered as "diplomatist", which is an arrestingly ugly word for reasons I can't quite fathom.
Sounds more like someone who discriminates against those without proof of education
I quite like bicyclist and vegetableist, which seem to fit some.
Are you a bicyclist? No, I'm heterosexual.
Are you a transpenninine train driver? No, I'm cis.
Ok. That's a reasonable pragmatic view. I got the impression from your previous posts you could not be a republican and a conservative. Are there really no openly republican Tories?
That's neither reasonable nor pragmatic! He's literally talking about cancelling views he doesn't agree with and purging people who hold them. HYUFD is a Stalinist nightmare of a politician and almost everyone, Conservatives included, would fail his ridiculous purity tests.
I'm not entirely convinced that HYUFD is genuine. Would a party office-holder really go out of his way to drive sympathisers away from the party and urge them to vote Labour, or talk of "cancelling" people (surely the kind of language that right-wingers accuse lefties of using)? He's often interesting and well-informed on polling, and always polite, but politically he doesn't seem quite credible - but no offence if that's how he really feels.
Was talking to a lurker the other day who was saying much the same. Can't be real. Also seems, for a youngish person, to have a lot of time to comment here.
He is an elected official of the party
So are his duties that light that he can spend the time here he does?
I'm retired, and find plenty of other things to do, especially when there's cricket or Rugby League to watch!
Town Councils are serious business I have you know
Thornaby Town Council was a serious joke. Still is. As was neighbouring Billingham (a financial black hole with zero oversight) and Yarm (two rival groups of ex-Tory independents literally fighting in council meetings).
I'd abolish that whole tier in a heartbeat.
Town and parish councils are the closest layer of local government to most market towns and villages and arguably most relevant to what goes on there.
Indeed in some unitary councils like Buckinghamshire and Cornwall the old district councils have been abolished and the town and parish councils are the only layer of local government before the unitary councils (which have effectively replaced the old county councils there)
I know that there are some big ones. But from my experience they are the most remote from what goes on in towns and villages.
A council. Sometimes "elected" uncontested with no election. With no standards oversight of any practical description. Able to collect any amount of money they like via the precept. Which they can then spend on bonkers with no interest or oversight or due diligence.
It is the town council and parish council which runs the local market, the local fete and town show, remembrance parades, the local public toilets, allotments, recreation and playgrounds, cemeteries and has the first stage input into local licensing and planning applications.
They are very relevant to local life, especially if you only live in a village or small town and are based in that village or town. Certainly they are more directly connected than a unitary council based in a city or the county town on the other side of the county.
Most town council elections are contested by all parties, some parish council elections in villages are uncontested with local independents winning but then again much of their work is not party political but for the good of the local community
Yours might be. Teesside's town councils are responsible for dog poo bins. Everything else you mention is the borough council not the town council.
Appreciate that some are bigger - IIRC Salisbury is run by a council in this tier. But many were accurately portrayed on the Vicar of Dibley.
Of course the more borough and district and county councils get abolished and replaced by unitary councils, the more influential town and parish councils will be. As unitaries will do what the old county councils did and most but not all of what the old district and boroughs did with the town and parish councils doing the rest
In which case we need oversight. Stockton Borough Council is a unitary authority, and its practical oversight over the various dog poo bin town councils in its area was near zero.
Comments
Jersey know (heck I know my first reference on here to this exact issue is months old) there is a set of boats that have been overfishing but was never able to identify them as they intentionally avoided tracking and paperwork.
Sadly they now need evidence to demonstrate that they have the right to fish there which they don't have for reasons in the previous paragraph.
They also hated debt, so they were always cautious with money except when it came to me.
Heck, they made sure I got on the property ladder when I was 21 rather than my plan to rent.
Fortunately my successes and their own decisions allow them to have a fantastic life.
I'd abolish that whole tier in a heartbeat.
Polygraphs (they are not lie detectors) are worthless, they're barely above 50%. If the coin toss had gone against him he would've looked guilty even though the machine is utterly without value.
How odd. I was going to link to a blog I wrote excoriating them and it doesn't appear to be around any more... well, I couldn't find it via Google, but here it is having manually sought it out and luckily guessed the right year.
https://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-polygraph-work-of-science-fiction.html
Thank goodness we're on the verge of war with the Frogs to keep things at least slightly interesting!
So about diplomacy.. It comes to English in the late 18C, (unsurprisingly) from the French diplomatie, formed from diplomate the same way aristocratie was from aristocrate. The French diplomate was from Modern Latin diplomaticus, which game from the genitive case diplomatis of diploma - an official document.
This was from Ancient Greek δίπλωμα, which means "twice folded thing" and was the word for an official document, but also for the parallel streams of the milky way, the foetal position, or a double pot for boiling unguents.
In modern Greek δίπλωμα has the common modern meaning of diploma in English, but still retains its 'double folded' sense, meaning "the folding of, say, a map - especially in half".
Let's hope these holders of double folded official documents don't act like climate diplodocuses! (diplodocus - means 'double beamed' which is (surprisingly to me) nothing to with its long neck, and is to do with the shape of chevron bones in the tail)
The lie detector is utterly unproven to be accurate. It isn't even permissible evidence.
In my (new) quest to become more generally knowledgeable (not hard given my startpoint) I was brushing up yesterday on how we humans came to be. Turns out it was a longish process, about 10 million years, soup to nuts, where the earliest uprights were the soup and we are the nuts. This is how it read to me anyway. We have Got Evolution Done. That the process is ongoing, that we are still evolving, didn't seem to feature, but I'd have thought we are. Or at least we might be.
In which case, why should there not be a repeat of something that has happened before and which was key to us being what we are today? I refer to the Big Fork, when our lineage split into 2 streams, one (I forget the exact name) went with bigger jaws and the other with bigger brains, the latter further evolving over deep time into us, the former into something else. We then achieved dominance due to that "choice". It was the brains wot won it. Hard to credit, looking at much of what goes on, but there you go. Still true.
So, what I'm wondering, seeing these bizarre (to me) mindsets on climate change, is whether we might be seeing the very first inklings of such a seismic event taking place now and, like the financial crisis, like most things, starting in America. If this is the case, the schism between these 2 "tribes", Democrats and Republicans, takes on a much deeper significance than just its potential impact on next year's midterms and the betting implications thereof.
Indeed in some unitary councils like Buckinghamshire and Cornwall the old district councils have been abolished and the town and parish councils are the only layer of local government before the unitary councils (which have effectively replaced the old county councils there)
There are positives and negatives to this. On the one hand, the law will motivate murderers to reveal what actually happened after they have given up on appealing their convictions, but this is at the expense of the genuinely innocent who get a defacto whole life sentence, unless they give a false confession or make up a story about where the body is in order to eventually get out of jail.
I would argue that the negatives outweigh the positives, but it was clearly a politically irresistable law. There will be lots of perverse and unfair outcomes.
That said, I don't support HYUFD's rather narrow definition of conservatism.
https://lolly-truecrime.medium.com/missing-linda-razzell-9b5ac140509a
A basket of Neanderthals*; they're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it.
*though I get that they have received a very bad 'winners' press
Not looking good for Mons. Macaron if his little helpers can't find anything credible-sounding at all.
Terds is the term, maybe? Trumpite exclusionary radical democrats
A council. Sometimes "elected" uncontested with no election. With no standards oversight of any practical description. Able to collect any amount of money they like via the precept. Which they can then spend on bonkers with no interest or oversight or due diligence.
How many countries now have committed to Net Zero in the build-up to COP26? Even the USA and China have.
Whether it happens or not is a different matter, but getting those committments is a major thing that shouldn't be overlooked.
If we can get to Net Zero via technology in 2050 then that's great and the end of the matter as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less if that means 1.5 or we miss 1.5 and hit 1.7 or 1.8 or any other number.
Considering we're supposedly at 1.2 already, this "keep 1.5 alive" seems rather irrelevant to be honest other than spin, we're talking only 0.3 from here to get to that.
What am I missing?
However in my former home elections to the Parish (equivalent) Council are keenly contested.
They are very relevant to local life, especially if you only live in a village or small town and are based in that village or town. Certainly they are more directly connected than a unitary council based in a city or the county town on the other side of the county.
Most town council elections are contested by all parties, some parish council elections in villages are uncontested with local independents winning but then again much of their work is not party political but for the good of the local community
When the licensing system came in, the people at the Jersey licensing authority asked for what seemed (to them) a reasonable amount of evidence of fishing legally. So they could convert that into formal licenses....
I'm interested in species that somehow have managed to live long past the point when similar species went extinct, like hyenas, crocodiles, sturgeon, komodo dragons. Why did they survive? I think that simple chance had a lot to do with their survival.
Edit to add: to Americans the 40 or so miles that he is out by might seem trivial.
Unfortunate that Raab is the current Secretary of State for Justice. Not much confidence that he'd understand why they're harmful.
That's like reporting from Anfield, in London, England. 😂
It’s just he didn’t want to go to Glasgow…
Would Russia or China Help Us if We Were Invaded by Space Aliens?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/01/opinion/climate-glasgow-russia-china.html
Appreciate that some are bigger - IIRC Salisbury is run by a council in this tier. But many were accurately portrayed on the Vicar of Dibley.
They'd only fork with their own.
I would compare it to the requirements to travel re Covid. Many of the testing providers of day 2 and 8 tests turned out to be either incompetent or crooks. I know so many who haven't received their tests, but because they have received the reference for the PLF when they applied they get back into the country. I can't believe any then organise another test. In fact they wouldn't be able to and hit the Day 2 deadline. Nobody cares.
However what happens in the future if suddenly you have to produce the result of the test for some other reason?
I think a lot commenting on this with no personal expertise or experience fail to understand there is a big difference between theory and real life.
The secret ballot will be enough to prevent speciation from happening.
NY Times
1. To many Americans, Scotland is Edinborrow. Show them a backdrop they can understand
2. Glasgow is full and overflowing. Edinburgh much easier to be in at the moment.
@DPJHodges
·
11m
As everyone laughs at Wold Blitzer it should be pointed out lots of attendees are having to stay in Edinburgh because there was insufficient hotel accommodation in Glasgow.
@ONS
·
2h
The age-adjusted risk of deaths involving #COVID19 was 32 times greater in unvaccinated people than in fully vaccinated individuals between 2 Jan and 24 Sept 2021 http://ow.ly/xaaY50GC9RH
Of course, if the person subsequently turns up alive, would you then be liable for something? Perjury, possibly? (not sure of the legal weight of such a statement). Providing false information?
Would really suck to be wrongly imprisoned for murder, then imprisoned again for lying about where the body was when it turned out the person was in fact alive!
Anyway, must get back to staff training…
Much more recently than that.
And wasn't it "...Trump !" ?
The Asian populations who crossed the Bering straits to the Americas were separated from other humans for around 10,000 years, I think? (Including, ISTR, 1000 years for which they were marooned in an area the size of half a Canadian province which was surrounded by solid ice. That must have been one of pre-history's grimmer periods.) But this wasn't nearly enough for them to evolve into a separate species. Even the 40-60,000 years for which Australian aborigines were separated from the rest of humanity wasn't enough (though there, there was probably some contact between aborigines and melanesians).
https://www.flightradar24.com/N122GB/29b4fbc1
Are you a transpenninine train driver? No, I'm cis.