TimT said:

state_go_away said:

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.

Quantum Depp

Schroedinger's Depp

kinabalu said:

malcolmg said:

kinabalu said:

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eristdoof said:

Andy_JS said:

kinabalu said:

Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.

Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.

Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.

I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.

Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.

Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.

Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?

I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well

Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.

But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.

Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.

Allegedly your nose as well

Yes, your nostrils get wider and hairier. I'm looking forward to that.

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

I’m sure you are sincere. So am I. I’ve spent too much of my life (about ten minutes) thinking about this ludicrous “trial” and now I can’t be arsed to spend a minute more

Ca suffit. I am off to Tbilisi’s biggest Carrefour to buy some olive oil and hopefully some decent tonic. Ah, the exotic excitement!

state_go_away said:

TimT said:

state_go_away said:

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.

Quantum Depp

Schroedinger's Depp

given his previous famous credits , what is he when he is on the High Seas?

FrancisUrquhart said:

noneoftheabove said:

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.

In which case, the EU should standardise the measurement for it.

Not sure we should look to EU for consistency, remember Russian Oil isn't russian oil if it comes via a pipeline directly from russia, but it is if it comes via ship.

Taz said:

kinabalu said:

malcolmg said:

kinabalu said:

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eristdoof said:

Andy_JS said:

kinabalu said:

Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.

Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.

Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.

I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.

Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.

Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.

Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?

I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well

Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.

But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.

Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.

Allegedly your nose as well

Yes, your nostrils get wider and hairier. I'm looking forward to that.

Nostril hair waxing is something I will give a miss.

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.

That's not my question though.

Richard_Tyndall said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.

That's not my question though.

It makes your question void. At least as far as the point about free speech goes. Heard is able to say what she likes, where she likes. But if that is considered defamation then she can be sued for it. The situation is exactly the same as it was before the trial. If you don't want to be sued then don't make false claims.

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Taz said:

bondegezou said:

This commentary, https://ukandeu.ac.uk/immigration-is-public-opinion-changing/ , points out that positive views of immigration and free movement increased before the UK government committed to its no-free-movement, hard Brexit.

One of the big problems the benefits of immigration has had is the dishonesty of politicians talking tough about it while actively enabling it. Both new labour and Cameron’s Tories did this. They were too spineless to make the case for their policy.

The one problem this gave was making it seems Immigration was a problem that the govt was powerless to control

The bigger problem was that Governments of all stripes - starting with Blair - have been dishonest about the rates of immigration they are allowing. Not just refusing to support their own policies but actively lying about them. This meant there were big increases in populations in some council areas which central government refused to recognise so leaving those areas desperately short of funding for basic things like education and health care.

A more honest government would not just have made the case for more immigration but would have recognised (indeed promoted) the scale of what was happening and made sure proper resourcing was in place to support it.

Leon said:

Incroyable testimony from a Scouse UFC fighter, on what he saw before during and after the UCL final at Stade de France

In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France

https://twitter.com/rmcsportcombat/status/1532440163133136896

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.

That's not my question though.

It makes your question void. At least as far as the point about free speech goes. Heard is able to say what she likes, where she likes. But if that is considered defamation then she can be sued for it. The situation is exactly the same as it was before the trial. If you don't want to be sued then don't make false claims.

Can we sue politicians for making false claims about their virtue, competence, plans, etc?

Please???

MarqueeMark said:

Been out in the garden - have we lost the cricket yet?

bondegezou said:

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.

You don't create crimes to stop people being old fashioned in their harmless ways. Or even silly.

We created those laws decades ago. If there are any Steves left who are affected, they are very small in number. Again, should this be the top priority of a UK government facing multiple crises?

dixiedean said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

But he already has that slack!

Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...

Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.

The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.

But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.

My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.

I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.

An eighth of an ounce is 3.5 grams.
Sign of a wasted youth, that.

Richard_Tyndall said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.

That's not my question though.

It makes your question void. At least as far as the point about free speech goes. Heard is able to say what she likes, where she likes. But if that is considered defamation then she can be sued for it. The situation is exactly the same as it was before the trial. If you don't want to be sued then don't make false claims.

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

Incroyable testimony from a Scouse UFC fighter, on what he saw before during and after the UCL final at Stade de France

In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France

https://twitter.com/rmcsportcombat/status/1532440163133136896

France has its own AOC called Amélie Oudéa-Castéra who's the minister of sports. She tried to blame the problems on "thousands of English fans" trying to get into the stadium without tickets.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AOC1978/status/1530687125498351616

Richard_Tyndall said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kinabalu said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.

That's not my question though.

It makes your question void. At least as far as the point about free speech goes. Heard is able to say what she likes, where she likes. But if that is considered defamation then she can be sued for it. The situation is exactly the same as it was before the trial. If you don't want to be sued then don't make false claims.

Can we sue politicians for making false claims about their virtue, competence, plans, etc?

Please???

Apparently it only applies if people believe it. No one believes a word politicians say anyway so no one is being deceived.

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MarqueeMark said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gardenwalker said:

Looks like Boris was booed on the way out, too.

Has he had a proper public booing before? Part of me thinks he must have, but I'm not sure when.

For someone who gives the impression of needing to be liked (in a way that, George Osbourne, say, didn't), it must hurt.

Boris was always going to get a damn good shoeing, because....HM the Queen alone on the night before Phillip's funeral. Regardless of whether Boris was present at the partying, he oversaw the culture. Said at the time it came out it was the sort of thing you don't get over - especially when those most aggrieved would be largely Conservative ladies of a certain age.

I also suspect a lot of people think Boris was personally at that party. His apology sort of made it sound like he was and rarely is it made clear he wasn't.

His problem is now that a significant section of the electorate still wouldn't believe him if the Dalai Lama produced a picture of them in orbit together that evening at the International Space Station...

state_go_away said:

williamglenn said:

Leon said:

Incroyable testimony from a Scouse UFC fighter, on what he saw before during and after the UCL final at Stade de France

In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France

https://twitter.com/rmcsportcombat/status/1532440163133136896

France has its own AOC called Amélie Oudéa-Castéra who's the minister of sports. She tried to blame the problems on "thousands of English fans" trying to get into the stadium without tickets.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AOC1978/status/1530687125498351616

of course we brits know best -maybe she is unaware of the law that scouse footie fans are always the victims and never to blame

Gardenwalker said:

Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

Aslan said:

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.

Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.

Taz said:

Gardenwalker said:

Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.

ydoethur said:

Taz said:

Gardenwalker said:

Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.

'One' could be 'up to 70,' if taken literally.

What we can say is if the threshold isn't reached after all this chatter the Tories will look even more preternaturally stupid than they already do.

Gardenwalker said:

Taz said:

Gardenwalker said:

Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.

Probably. They are also reporting that government whips are to launch a charm offensive to 60-odd suspected wobblers, including Theresa May, Tom Tugendhat, and Guy Opperman.

Why bother if there are already 70 letters.

ydoethur said:

Taz said:

Gardenwalker said:

Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.

'One' could be 'up to 70,' if taken literally.

What we can say is if the threshold isn't reached after all this chatter the Tories will look even more preternaturally stupid than they already do.

ydoethur said:

Gardenwalker said:

Taz said:

Gardenwalker said:

Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.

Probably. They are also reporting that government whips are to launch a charm offensive to 60-odd suspected wobblers, including Theresa May, Tom Tugendhat, and Guy Opperman.

Why bother if there are already 70 letters.

Fuck me. The irony.

She must be loving this...

Aslan said:

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.

Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.

LostPassword said:

ydoethur said:

Taz said:

Gardenwalker said:

Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.

'One' could be 'up to 70,' if taken literally.

What we can say is if the threshold isn't reached after all this chatter the Tories will look even more preternaturally stupid than they already do.

No. If the threshold isn't reached then the newspapers look like prats.

The maximum stupidity scenario for the Tories is that they have a vote of confidence that Boris wins by a handful.

Pulpstar said:

Between tea and drinks yesterday New Zealand got 17 overs in. England have achieved... 10 so far as I can tell.

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

Those immigration sentiment stats posted earlier track perfectly with tabloid coverage of immigration issues.

(You can find this yourself by clicking on the original twitter thread link).

It seems a reasonable explanation then that Brexit hasn’t actually changed opinions, it’s just that the Daily Mail has stopped ranting about it.

Jesus. You’re so desperate for nothing good to come from Brexit that when something obviously good comes from Brexit you reach for the last refuge of the twat “it’s the Daily Mail, innit”

The FT, not notably pro Brexit, thinks the move to more positive sentiments on migration is because Brexit

Yes and from that series is the one showing the correlation with tabloid coverage.

I assume you haven’t found it yet.

I’ll go with John Burns Murdoch of the FT, who has been so good on Covid. He’s the data guru

Indeed.

Gardenwalker said:

Taz said:

Gardenwalker said:

Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.

Probably. They are also reporting that government whips are to launch a charm offensive to 60-odd suspected wobblers, including Theresa May, Tom Tugendhat, and Guy Opperman.

Why bother if there are already 70 letters.

THIS THREAD HAS ABDICATED

rcs1000 said:

carnforth said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

OllyT said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.

I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working

There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.

I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.

If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.

Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards

As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto

“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1529754662722740224?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w

Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.

I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.

So, you think Remainers are saying they're happy with immigration post Brexit as a way of signalling that they're unhappy with Brexit?

I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.

MarqueeMark said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MarqueeMark said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gardenwalker said:

Looks like Boris was booed on the way out, too.

Has he had a proper public booing before? Part of me thinks he must have, but I'm not sure when.

For someone who gives the impression of needing to be liked (in a way that, George Osbourne, say, didn't), it must hurt.

Boris was always going to get a damn good shoeing, because....HM the Queen alone on the night before Phillip's funeral. Regardless of whether Boris was present at the partying, he oversaw the culture. Said at the time it came out it was the sort of thing you don't get over - especially when those most aggrieved would be largely Conservative ladies of a certain age.

I also suspect a lot of people think Boris was personally at that party. His apology sort of made it sound like he was and rarely is it made clear he wasn't.

His problem is now that a significant section of the electorate still wouldn't believe him if the Dalai Lama produced a picture of them in orbit together that evening at the International Space Station...

FrancisUrquhart said:

Her Majesty will not attend the Epsom Derby tomorrow but is expected to watch it on television at Windsor Castle. The Princess Royal is expected to attend, representing her mother 🐎 #PlatinumJubilee

Bloody WFH....

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

I’m sure you are sincere. So am I. I’ve spent too much of my life (about ten minutes) thinking about this ludicrous “trial” and now I can’t be arsed to spend a minute more

Ca suffit. I am off to Tbilisi’s biggest Carrefour to buy some olive oil and hopefully some decent tonic. Ah, the exotic excitement!