Is it any wonder the Nadine peerage move has been stalled? – politicalbetting.com

RobD said:

Wasn't it because she wanted to stay as an MP until the end of her term?

FF43 said:

Sixth like the Tories in Mid Beds. If the trend continues

RobD said:

dixiedean said:

RobD said:

Wasn't it because she wanted to stay as an MP until the end of her term?

Then she has a poor understanding of the term "resigning".

I'm talking about why the committee rejected her.

RobD said:

dixiedean said:

Why has this information only just become public?
I'd like to see a system where MP's need to log and evidence hours worked, what they did, and how it was relevant to their role as an MP.
Rather like job seekers.
And for those details to be scrutinised and then published.

That information is in the public domain. It's easy to find out when someone last made a contribution, or how many votes they have attended:

https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/42267&showall=yes

As for her being on TalkTV, that was hardly a secret.

dixiedean said:

RobD said:

Wasn't it because she wanted to stay as an MP until the end of her term?

Then she has a poor understanding of the term "resigning".

RobD said:

dixiedean said:

Why has this information only just become public?
I'd like to see a system where MP's need to log and evidence hours worked, what they did, and how it was relevant to their role as an MP.
Rather like job seekers.
And for those details to be scrutinised and then published.

That information is in the public domain. It's easy to find out when someone last made a contribution, or how many votes they have attended:

https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/42267&showall=yes

As for her being on TalkTV, that was hardly a secret.

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

WillG said:

Leon said:

northern_monkey said:

Leon said:

Would the Remoaners on here finally STFU if we got a reformed Brexit that gave us back Freedom of Movement?

It seems to be the most emotive and profound loss, from Brexit, for a majority of Remainery people (and I share some of the pain, as I say). Perhaps that is the place where Britain could finally reconcile. Brexit Plus. Brexit Plus Freedom of Movement

We'll be like the ERG in reverse - you'll never appease us with titbit after titbit, grudging morsel after dry crumb. We'll always want more. Pure, hard, diamond-tipped Rejoin. Whatever acronym is the 180 degree opposite of BRINO. I want my EU citizenship back.

Blue flagged, rather than brown-watered, beaches, the Euro, Schengen, the banning of offshore tax havens, the whole shebang please. Coming out hasn't worked, let's go back in full-throttle. If you could make that so I'd be very appreciative.

Incidentally, it was very astute of Question Time to stuff last night's audience full of ill-informed gammon, dribbling out the same tired, discredited Johnsonian garbage. (Didn't watch it, of course, but the QT hashtag throws up a damning verdict from the hive mind.) In a few years when admitting voting Leave in polite company will be akin to squatting down and curling one out on your host's lovely dining table, nice people can shudder and say with a contemptuous titter 'No, of course I didn't vote Leave! It was voted for by those ghastly mouth-breathing idiots who look like they've been sculpted out of pork pie meat. What common accents they have. Like on that Question Time, you remember.'

Aaaaand, this sneering drivel is why you will never get to Rejoin. You immediately alienate a Liberal Leaver like me, and make me yearn for even Harder Brexit so you suffer, again and again

I know you are half joking, but you are only half joking. So I say to the other half: HAHAHAHAHAHA, we're never going back in. Tough shit

The basic problem they have is that most people in the UK have an underlying identity and low level patriotism based on being British and their home nation. Even as we become more cosmopolitan, Brits still want to come back to hearing British regional accents and the local customs and food. Meanwhile the really hardcore remainers identify more with Paris and Berlin and have cultural cringe over Skegness.

So there is no understanding there that Brits, even when some think it is economically advantageous to be in the EU, don't like lawmaking from Brussells, no passport checks on Romanians and economic policy set in Frankfurt.

I suspect some Remainers know this, which is why they want as much unintegrated immigration as possible, so they have a voting base not attached to traditional British culture.

Hardcore Remainers are unremittingly awful people. I can't work out whether they were always awful, nasty, sneering, and mentally inadequate, and we simply didn't notice - or whether Brexit made them that way. Genuine puzzle

Hardcore Remainers have also long replaced Tory voters as the snobbiest voters around (and a lot of them happen to be LDs)

That really isn’t an assumption you are entitled to make.
I’m proud to be a hard-core Remainer, and as far as I’m concerned Jack’s as good as his master.

Some Remainers unfortunately do seem to operate within a kind of caste system with themselves at the top, EU migrants as an approved labouring class, and Brexit voters as the untouchables with whom they are embarrassed to share a country. It's the "but who will serve my sandwiches in Pret?" attitude.

That's a piece of hackneyed nonsense. It's not like that at all. It's just that people like me are sad about the hard tangible benefits of EU membership being tossed away in return for nothing but jingoistic hot air, red tape and hassle. There are no plusses whatsoever unless you count Boris Johnson and Liz Truss getting a crack at being PM as a plus.

So, no, it was without doubt a terrible terrible decision we took 7 years ago today, but there's no big personal animus towards Leavers, either individually or as a group. Certainly not from me anyway. Although I will admit (being perfectly serious here) that if I was moving house there is no way I'd consider a place that voted for Brexit.

The benefits of the EU haven't been tossed away for nothing though, we no longer pay for those benefits which frankly most leavers did not see as worth it. EU membership cost about 10£ bill a year, each and ever tax payer therefore was paying if we go on the adult population of the uk of around 45 million was costing us about 222£ a year.

Most didnt use FoM, only 12% of gdp comes from exports half of which is to the eu so lets say 6% of exports. We were all paying to support tiny minorities of people and companies that benefitted from EU membership. Now speaking as someone who earns well south of a 6 figure salary unlike most of PB

I couldnt afford to call in a plumber/electrician/au pair etc even during FoM and had to do it myself

My rent continually raised because increased population

Doctors waiting times went up because population went up by 10% with no extra doctors

I didn't want to work in the EU or live in the EU

Since FoM disappeared many people including me have for the first time in ages got pay rises because bosses can't just go fuck you plenty will do your job for less ( I was earning the same in 2002 as I was in 2016 despite changing jobs 3 times)

So explain to me what was the advantage to me of the EU that I should pay 222£ a year (actually more when you consider about half the country doesnt actually pay income tax)

There will be individuals who benefit and perhaps you're one of them. You know your circumstances better than me. However the net impact on the economy is negative. Theory said so before the event, practice says so after it. On top of that our influence in the world is reduced. Poorer, weaker, this is the reality of Brexit Britain. It isn't even delivering its USP (to Leavers) of lower immigration.

I might still be ok with it if it were to lead to a significant sustainable redistribution of wealth in favour of the poor. But the claims that it's doing this are tosh as far as I can see. All we've got are damaged supply chains, worse terms of trade, chaotic labour shortages and embedded inflation. Very few Britons will emerge better off and those that do will be the usual suspects. Bet you any money that'll be the case.

The economy doing better however is irrelevant for all those who get no benefit from it doing better. Unless you are trying to argue trickle down economics which would be bizarre for a self confessed lefty.

If the gdp of the country doubles but I get no benefit from it and actually get poorer how does that help me? There are millions in that position living from hand to mouth while people keep telling them the country is getting richer off immigration while they are see escalating rents, minimum wage becoming maximum wage in many sectors, and decreasing services because more people are looking for housing jobs and services.

Do I hold immigrants responsible? No I don't they are doing what is best for them. I am sure you can agree. However you also have to accept that the poor also have a right to do whats best for them not what is best for you and for many that was vote leave. This is why you lost.

I like how you think you're in a good position to decide on why you think the EU referendum turned out the way it did when you can't even tell the difference between 6/100 and 6/26. You're an absolute mess.

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

fpt

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

WillG said:

Leon said:

northern_monkey said:

Leon said:

Would the Remoaners on here finally STFU if we got a reformed Brexit that gave us back Freedom of Movement?

It seems to be the most emotive and profound loss, from Brexit, for a majority of Remainery people (and I share some of the pain, as I say). Perhaps that is the place where Britain could finally reconcile. Brexit Plus. Brexit Plus Freedom of Movement

We'll be like the ERG in reverse - you'll never appease us with titbit after titbit, grudging morsel after dry crumb. We'll always want more. Pure, hard, diamond-tipped Rejoin. Whatever acronym is the 180 degree opposite of BRINO. I want my EU citizenship back.

Blue flagged, rather than brown-watered, beaches, the Euro, Schengen, the banning of offshore tax havens, the whole shebang please. Coming out hasn't worked, let's go back in full-throttle. If you could make that so I'd be very appreciative.

Incidentally, it was very astute of Question Time to stuff last night's audience full of ill-informed gammon, dribbling out the same tired, discredited Johnsonian garbage. (Didn't watch it, of course, but the QT hashtag throws up a damning verdict from the hive mind.) In a few years when admitting voting Leave in polite company will be akin to squatting down and curling one out on your host's lovely dining table, nice people can shudder and say with a contemptuous titter 'No, of course I didn't vote Leave! It was voted for by those ghastly mouth-breathing idiots who look like they've been sculpted out of pork pie meat. What common accents they have. Like on that Question Time, you remember.'

Aaaaand, this sneering drivel is why you will never get to Rejoin. You immediately alienate a Liberal Leaver like me, and make me yearn for even Harder Brexit so you suffer, again and again

I know you are half joking, but you are only half joking. So I say to the other half: HAHAHAHAHAHA, we're never going back in. Tough shit

The basic problem they have is that most people in the UK have an underlying identity and low level patriotism based on being British and their home nation. Even as we become more cosmopolitan, Brits still want to come back to hearing British regional accents and the local customs and food. Meanwhile the really hardcore remainers identify more with Paris and Berlin and have cultural cringe over Skegness.

So there is no understanding there that Brits, even when some think it is economically advantageous to be in the EU, don't like lawmaking from Brussells, no passport checks on Romanians and economic policy set in Frankfurt.

I suspect some Remainers know this, which is why they want as much unintegrated immigration as possible, so they have a voting base not attached to traditional British culture.

Hardcore Remainers are unremittingly awful people. I can't work out whether they were always awful, nasty, sneering, and mentally inadequate, and we simply didn't notice - or whether Brexit made them that way. Genuine puzzle

Hardcore Remainers have also long replaced Tory voters as the snobbiest voters around (and a lot of them happen to be LDs)

That really isn’t an assumption you are entitled to make.
I’m proud to be a hard-core Remainer, and as far as I’m concerned Jack’s as good as his master.

Some Remainers unfortunately do seem to operate within a kind of caste system with themselves at the top, EU migrants as an approved labouring class, and Brexit voters as the untouchables with whom they are embarrassed to share a country. It's the "but who will serve my sandwiches in Pret?" attitude.

That's a piece of hackneyed nonsense. It's not like that at all. It's just that people like me are sad about the hard tangible benefits of EU membership being tossed away in return for nothing but jingoistic hot air, red tape and hassle. There are no plusses whatsoever unless you count Boris Johnson and Liz Truss getting a crack at being PM as a plus.

So, no, it was without doubt a terrible terrible decision we took 7 years ago today, but there's no big personal animus towards Leavers, either individually or as a group. Certainly not from me anyway. Although I will admit (being perfectly serious here) that if I was moving house there is no way I'd consider a place that voted for Brexit.

The benefits of the EU haven't been tossed away for nothing though, we no longer pay for those benefits which frankly most leavers did not see as worth it. EU membership cost about 10£ bill a year, each and ever tax payer therefore was paying if we go on the adult population of the uk of around 45 million was costing us about 222£ a year.

Most didnt use FoM, only 12% of gdp comes from exports half of which is to the eu so lets say 6% of exports. We were all paying to support tiny minorities of people and companies that benefitted from EU membership. Now speaking as someone who earns well south of a 6 figure salary unlike most of PB

I couldnt afford to call in a plumber/electrician/au pair etc even during FoM and had to do it myself

My rent continually raised because increased population

Doctors waiting times went up because population went up by 10% with no extra doctors

I didn't want to work in the EU or live in the EU

Since FoM disappeared many people including me have for the first time in ages got pay rises because bosses can't just go fuck you plenty will do your job for less ( I was earning the same in 2002 as I was in 2016 despite changing jobs 3 times)

So explain to me what was the advantage to me of the EU that I should pay 222£ a year (actually more when you consider about half the country doesnt actually pay income tax)

There will be individuals who benefit and perhaps you're one of them. You know your circumstances better than me. However the net impact on the economy is negative. Theory said so before the event, practice says so after it. On top of that our influence in the world is reduced. Poorer, weaker, this is the reality of Brexit Britain. It isn't even delivering its USP (to Leavers) of lower immigration.

I might still be ok with it if it were to lead to a significant sustainable redistribution of wealth in favour of the poor. But the claims that it's doing this are tosh as far as I can see. All we've got are damaged supply chains, worse terms of trade, chaotic labour shortages and embedded inflation. Very few Britons will emerge better off and those that do will be the usual suspects. Bet you any money that'll be the case.

The economy doing better however is irrelevant for all those who get no benefit from it doing better. Unless you are trying to argue trickle down economics which would be bizarre for a self confessed lefty.

If the gdp of the country doubles but I get no benefit from it and actually get poorer how does that help me? There are millions in that position living from hand to mouth while people keep telling them the country is getting richer off immigration while they are see escalating rents, minimum wage becoming maximum wage in many sectors, and decreasing services because more people are looking for housing jobs and services.

Do I hold immigrants responsible? No I don't they are doing what is best for them. I am sure you can agree. However you also have to accept that the poor also have a right to do whats best for them not what is best for you and for many that was vote leave. This is why you lost.

I like how you think you're in a good position to decide on why you think the EU referendum turned out the way it did when you can't even tell the difference between 6/100 and 6/26. You're an absolute mess.

The fact remains regardless you could move to ireland pre eu, you still can because of the CTA so you lost nothing. Want to bugger off to ireland here is your coat. But no its irrelevant for eu fom

replied on the previous thread

kle4 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Nigelb said:

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914
...In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said.
"I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to [the] Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'".
In the messages, Mr Rush expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures, writing in one email: "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult."
Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed.
"Until a sub is classed, tested and proven it should not be used for commercial deep dive operations," he wrote in one email.
"I implore you to take every care in your testing and sea trials and to be very, very conservative," he added. "As much as I appreciate entrepreneurship and innovation, you are potentially putting an entire industry at risk."..

Yes, I was just reading that. It really does beggar belief. There's nothing wrong with innovating and breaking things, but you can't be so blase about breaking humans, especially when those humans are commercial passengers who may not fully appreciate the risks involved. And an ego the size of a planet.

Disruptors and innovators are, of course, necessary things. But everything in moderation (including moderation). Some just fall in love with how disruptive they are, and boldness gives way to utter recklessness.

kle4 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Nigelb said:

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914
...In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said.
"I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to [the] Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'".
In the messages, Mr Rush expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures, writing in one email: "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult."
Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed.
"Until a sub is classed, tested and proven it should not be used for commercial deep dive operations," he wrote in one email.
"I implore you to take every care in your testing and sea trials and to be very, very conservative," he added. "As much as I appreciate entrepreneurship and innovation, you are potentially putting an entire industry at risk."..

Yes, I was just reading that. It really does beggar belief. There's nothing wrong with innovating and breaking things, but you can't be so blase about breaking humans, especially when those humans are commercial passengers who may not fully appreciate the risks involved. And an ego the size of a planet.

Disruptors and innovators are, of course, necessary things. But everything in moderation (including moderation). Some just fall in love with how disruptive they are, and boldness gives way to utter recklessness.

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

fpt

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

WillG said:

Leon said:

northern_monkey said:

Leon said:

Would the Remoaners on here finally STFU if we got a reformed Brexit that gave us back Freedom of Movement?

It seems to be the most emotive and profound loss, from Brexit, for a majority of Remainery people (and I share some of the pain, as I say). Perhaps that is the place where Britain could finally reconcile. Brexit Plus. Brexit Plus Freedom of Movement

We'll be like the ERG in reverse - you'll never appease us with titbit after titbit, grudging morsel after dry crumb. We'll always want more. Pure, hard, diamond-tipped Rejoin. Whatever acronym is the 180 degree opposite of BRINO. I want my EU citizenship back.

Blue flagged, rather than brown-watered, beaches, the Euro, Schengen, the banning of offshore tax havens, the whole shebang please. Coming out hasn't worked, let's go back in full-throttle. If you could make that so I'd be very appreciative.

Incidentally, it was very astute of Question Time to stuff last night's audience full of ill-informed gammon, dribbling out the same tired, discredited Johnsonian garbage. (Didn't watch it, of course, but the QT hashtag throws up a damning verdict from the hive mind.) In a few years when admitting voting Leave in polite company will be akin to squatting down and curling one out on your host's lovely dining table, nice people can shudder and say with a contemptuous titter 'No, of course I didn't vote Leave! It was voted for by those ghastly mouth-breathing idiots who look like they've been sculpted out of pork pie meat. What common accents they have. Like on that Question Time, you remember.'

Aaaaand, this sneering drivel is why you will never get to Rejoin. You immediately alienate a Liberal Leaver like me, and make me yearn for even Harder Brexit so you suffer, again and again

I know you are half joking, but you are only half joking. So I say to the other half: HAHAHAHAHAHA, we're never going back in. Tough shit

The basic problem they have is that most people in the UK have an underlying identity and low level patriotism based on being British and their home nation. Even as we become more cosmopolitan, Brits still want to come back to hearing British regional accents and the local customs and food. Meanwhile the really hardcore remainers identify more with Paris and Berlin and have cultural cringe over Skegness.

So there is no understanding there that Brits, even when some think it is economically advantageous to be in the EU, don't like lawmaking from Brussells, no passport checks on Romanians and economic policy set in Frankfurt.

I suspect some Remainers know this, which is why they want as much unintegrated immigration as possible, so they have a voting base not attached to traditional British culture.

Hardcore Remainers are unremittingly awful people. I can't work out whether they were always awful, nasty, sneering, and mentally inadequate, and we simply didn't notice - or whether Brexit made them that way. Genuine puzzle

Hardcore Remainers have also long replaced Tory voters as the snobbiest voters around (and a lot of them happen to be LDs)

That really isn’t an assumption you are entitled to make.
I’m proud to be a hard-core Remainer, and as far as I’m concerned Jack’s as good as his master.

Some Remainers unfortunately do seem to operate within a kind of caste system with themselves at the top, EU migrants as an approved labouring class, and Brexit voters as the untouchables with whom they are embarrassed to share a country. It's the "but who will serve my sandwiches in Pret?" attitude.

That's a piece of hackneyed nonsense. It's not like that at all. It's just that people like me are sad about the hard tangible benefits of EU membership being tossed away in return for nothing but jingoistic hot air, red tape and hassle. There are no plusses whatsoever unless you count Boris Johnson and Liz Truss getting a crack at being PM as a plus.

So, no, it was without doubt a terrible terrible decision we took 7 years ago today, but there's no big personal animus towards Leavers, either individually or as a group. Certainly not from me anyway. Although I will admit (being perfectly serious here) that if I was moving house there is no way I'd consider a place that voted for Brexit.

The benefits of the EU haven't been tossed away for nothing though, we no longer pay for those benefits which frankly most leavers did not see as worth it. EU membership cost about 10£ bill a year, each and ever tax payer therefore was paying if we go on the adult population of the uk of around 45 million was costing us about 222£ a year.

Most didnt use FoM, only 12% of gdp comes from exports half of which is to the eu so lets say 6% of exports. We were all paying to support tiny minorities of people and companies that benefitted from EU membership. Now speaking as someone who earns well south of a 6 figure salary unlike most of PB

I couldnt afford to call in a plumber/electrician/au pair etc even during FoM and had to do it myself

My rent continually raised because increased population

Doctors waiting times went up because population went up by 10% with no extra doctors

I didn't want to work in the EU or live in the EU

Since FoM disappeared many people including me have for the first time in ages got pay rises because bosses can't just go fuck you plenty will do your job for less ( I was earning the same in 2002 as I was in 2016 despite changing jobs 3 times)

So explain to me what was the advantage to me of the EU that I should pay 222£ a year (actually more when you consider about half the country doesnt actually pay income tax)

There will be individuals who benefit and perhaps you're one of them. You know your circumstances better than me. However the net impact on the economy is negative. Theory said so before the event, practice says so after it. On top of that our influence in the world is reduced. Poorer, weaker, this is the reality of Brexit Britain. It isn't even delivering its USP (to Leavers) of lower immigration.

I might still be ok with it if it were to lead to a significant sustainable redistribution of wealth in favour of the poor. But the claims that it's doing this are tosh as far as I can see. All we've got are damaged supply chains, worse terms of trade, chaotic labour shortages and embedded inflation. Very few Britons will emerge better off and those that do will be the usual suspects. Bet you any money that'll be the case.

The economy doing better however is irrelevant for all those who get no benefit from it doing better. Unless you are trying to argue trickle down economics which would be bizarre for a self confessed lefty.

If the gdp of the country doubles but I get no benefit from it and actually get poorer how does that help me? There are millions in that position living from hand to mouth while people keep telling them the country is getting richer off immigration while they are see escalating rents, minimum wage becoming maximum wage in many sectors, and decreasing services because more people are looking for housing jobs and services.

Do I hold immigrants responsible? No I don't they are doing what is best for them. I am sure you can agree. However you also have to accept that the poor also have a right to do whats best for them not what is best for you and for many that was vote leave. This is why you lost.

I like how you think you're in a good position to decide on why you think the EU referendum turned out the way it did when you can't even tell the difference between 6/100 and 6/26. You're an absolute mess.

The fact remains regardless you could move to ireland pre eu, you still can because of the CTA so you lost nothing. Want to bugger off to ireland here is your coat. But no its irrelevant for eu fom

replied on the previous thread

Yes missed it but the repoint remains brits could always move to ireland, still can despite eu or not eu so the only things that counts on eu vs not eu is countries we could just move to when in vs those that we cant now so the figure of 789k stands. A small infintesimal number of the population

yes, we've agreed on the numbers and I understand why you want to remove Ireland from the mix for the purposes of what you're talking about. My figures were exactly right but not relevant for what you want to talk about, so we should both just leave where we got to on the previous thread.

Nigelb said:

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914
...In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said.
"I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to [the] Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'".
In the messages, Mr Rush expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures, writing in one email: "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult."
Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed.
"Until a sub is classed, tested and proven it should not be used for commercial deep dive operations," he wrote in one email.
"I implore you to take every care in your testing and sea trials and to be very, very conservative," he added. "As much as I appreciate entrepreneurship and innovation, you are potentially putting an entire industry at risk."..

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914
...In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said.
"I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to [the] Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'".
In the messages, Mr Rush expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures, writing in one email: "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult."
Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed.
"Until a sub is classed, tested and proven it should not be used for commercial deep dive operations," he wrote in one email.
"I implore you to take every care in your testing and sea trials and to be very, very conservative," he added. "As much as I appreciate entrepreneurship and innovation, you are potentially putting an entire industry at risk."..

Even these pettifogging bureaucrats are right sometimes. But the man has paid with his life. Leave him alone.

Gardenwalker said:

Nadine is a grasping idiot.

Pagan2 said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914
...In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said.
"I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to [the] Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'".
In the messages, Mr Rush expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures, writing in one email: "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult."
Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed.
"Until a sub is classed, tested and proven it should not be used for commercial deep dive operations," he wrote in one email.
"I implore you to take every care in your testing and sea trials and to be very, very conservative," he added. "As much as I appreciate entrepreneurship and innovation, you are potentially putting an entire industry at risk."..

Even these pettifogging bureaucrats are right sometimes. But the man has paid with his life. Leave him alone.

He also took several other people with him, do we give a suicide bomber leeway because he paid with his life?

Pagan2 said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914
...In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said.
"I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to [the] Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'".
In the messages, Mr Rush expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures, writing in one email: "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult."
Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed.
"Until a sub is classed, tested and proven it should not be used for commercial deep dive operations," he wrote in one email.
"I implore you to take every care in your testing and sea trials and to be very, very conservative," he added. "As much as I appreciate entrepreneurship and innovation, you are potentially putting an entire industry at risk."..

Even these pettifogging bureaucrats are right sometimes. But the man has paid with his life. Leave him alone.

He also took several other people with him, do we give a suicide bomber leeway because he paid with his life?

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

kle4 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Nigelb said:

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914
...In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said.
"I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to [the] Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'".
In the messages, Mr Rush expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures, writing in one email: "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult."
Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed.
"Until a sub is classed, tested and proven it should not be used for commercial deep dive operations," he wrote in one email.
"I implore you to take every care in your testing and sea trials and to be very, very conservative," he added. "As much as I appreciate entrepreneurship and innovation, you are potentially putting an entire industry at risk."..

Yes, I was just reading that. It really does beggar belief. There's nothing wrong with innovating and breaking things, but you can't be so blase about breaking humans, especially when those humans are commercial passengers who may not fully appreciate the risks involved. And an ego the size of a planet.

Disruptors and innovators are, of course, necessary things. But everything in moderation (including moderation). Some just fall in love with how disruptive they are, and boldness gives way to utter recklessness.

They were utterly reckless. It was however their choice

Pythom

Not a typo

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

kle4 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Nigelb said:

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914
...In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said.
"I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to [the] Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'".
In the messages, Mr Rush expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures, writing in one email: "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult."
Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed.
"Until a sub is classed, tested and proven it should not be used for commercial deep dive operations," he wrote in one email.
"I implore you to take every care in your testing and sea trials and to be very, very conservative," he added. "As much as I appreciate entrepreneurship and innovation, you are potentially putting an entire industry at risk."..

Yes, I was just reading that. It really does beggar belief. There's nothing wrong with innovating and breaking things, but you can't be so blase about breaking humans, especially when those humans are commercial passengers who may not fully appreciate the risks involved. And an ego the size of a planet.

Disruptors and innovators are, of course, necessary things. But everything in moderation (including moderation). Some just fall in love with how disruptive they are, and boldness gives way to utter recklessness.

They were utterly reckless. It was however their choice

Pythom

Not a typo

no a reference to the swedish company

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914
...In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said.
"I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to [the] Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'".
In the messages, Mr Rush expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures, writing in one email: "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult."
Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed.
"Until a sub is classed, tested and proven it should not be used for commercial deep dive operations," he wrote in one email.
"I implore you to take every care in your testing and sea trials and to be very, very conservative," he added. "As much as I appreciate entrepreneurship and innovation, you are potentially putting an entire industry at risk."..

Even these pettifogging bureaucrats are right sometimes. But the man has paid with his life. Leave him alone.

He also took several other people with him, do we give a suicide bomber leeway because he paid with his life?

I'll tell you what: you find him and I'll pay for the private prosecution.

viewcode said:

"Trump, Johnson and the real problem with populism: Helped to power by mainstream conservatives, this is a movement whose leaders cannot be expected to self-destruct". Jan-Werner Müller JUNE 17 2023, the Financial Times. See https://www.ft.com/content/a8c60111-09a7-4264-a503-a03e55394b70?sharetype=blocked

eek said:

HYUFD said:

So until we have Baroness Dorries, it looks like there will be no by election in mid bedfordshire. Which likely means no election there until the national election next year

And by the looks of it zero support from their MP for any constituents in her constituency.

pigeon said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

So until we have Baroness Dorries, it looks like there will be no by election in mid bedfordshire. Which likely means no election there until the national election next year

And by the looks of it zero support from their MP for any constituents in her constituency.

And there's nothing they can do to get rid of her, of course, given that there's no minimum service obligation placed upon MPs. AIUI a sufficiently shameless chancer could, in theory, get themselves elected and then never set foot in the Palace of Westminster, or in the constituency, or have any interaction with a constituent, even once.

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914
...In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said.
"I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to [the] Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'".
In the messages, Mr Rush expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures, writing in one email: "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult."
Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed.
"Until a sub is classed, tested and proven it should not be used for commercial deep dive operations," he wrote in one email.
"I implore you to take every care in your testing and sea trials and to be very, very conservative," he added. "As much as I appreciate entrepreneurship and innovation, you are potentially putting an entire industry at risk."..

Even these pettifogging bureaucrats are right sometimes. But the man has paid with his life. Leave him alone.

He also took several other people with him, do we give a suicide bomber leeway because he paid with his life?

I'll tell you what: you find him and I'll pay for the private prosecution.

I didnt say he should be prosecuted for the obvious fact he is like a dodo, I merely asserted we shouldn't leave him alone because he did cause the death of others who I am confident he gave assurances that his sub was safe.

If I gave people a lift in a car while knowing the brakes were faulty but assumed it would be fine and we crashed and killed me and all the others are you saying I should not be held culpable?

DavidL said:

Pagan2 said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914
...In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said.
"I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to [the] Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'".
In the messages, Mr Rush expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures, writing in one email: "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult."
Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed.
"Until a sub is classed, tested and proven it should not be used for commercial deep dive operations," he wrote in one email.
"I implore you to take every care in your testing and sea trials and to be very, very conservative," he added. "As much as I appreciate entrepreneurship and innovation, you are potentially putting an entire industry at risk."..

Even these pettifogging bureaucrats are right sometimes. But the man has paid with his life. Leave him alone.

He also took several other people with him, do we give a suicide bomber leeway because he paid with his life?

No, but the victims of a suicide bomber are not there by choice.

viewcode said:

"Cliodynamics: can science decode the laws of history?", Peter Turchin, Aug 16, The Conversation, see https://theconversation.com/cliodynamics-can-science-decode-the-laws-of-history-8626

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65998914
...In messages seen by the BBC, Rob McCallum told OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that he was potentially putting his clients at risk and urged him to stop using the sub until it had been classified by an independent body.
Mr Rush responded that he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation".
The tense exchange ended after OceanGate's lawyers threatened legal action, Mr McCallum said.
"I think you are potentially placing yourself and your clients in a dangerous dynamic," he wrote to the OceanGate boss in March 2018. "In your race to [the] Titanic you are mirroring that famous catch cry: 'She is unsinkable'".
In the messages, Mr Rush expresses frustration with the criticism of Titan's safety measures, writing in one email: "We have heard the baseless cries of 'you are going to kill someone' way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult."
Mr McCallum told the BBC that he repeatedly urged the company to seek certification for the Titan before using it for commercial tours. The vessel was never certified or classed.
"Until a sub is classed, tested and proven it should not be used for commercial deep dive operations," he wrote in one email.
"I implore you to take every care in your testing and sea trials and to be very, very conservative," he added. "As much as I appreciate entrepreneurship and innovation, you are potentially putting an entire industry at risk."..

Even these pettifogging bureaucrats are right sometimes. But the man has paid with his life. Leave him alone.

He also took several other people with him, do we give a suicide bomber leeway because he paid with his life?

I'll tell you what: you find him and I'll pay for the private prosecution.

I didnt say he should be prosecuted for the obvious fact he is like a dodo, I merely asserted we shouldn't leave him alone because he did cause the death of others who I am confident he gave assurances that his sub was safe.

If I gave people a lift in a car while knowing the brakes were faulty but assumed it would be fine and we crashed and killed me and all the others are you saying I should not be held culpable?

How do you know that?

I have a friend who cave dives. (Nutter.) And the first time he went down, it was drilled into him that it was an incredibly dangerous, and that even with the best preparations in the world, he could well die.

The guy who did this was negligent, probably highly negligent, and that negligence led to the deaths of a number of people.

But people - so long as they understand the risks - are allowed to go base jumping and cave diving and to try and climb mount Everest.

Was not one of the passengers the son on someone who invited him along. Do you really think he knew the risks as to cave divers....yes done it a couple of times and you are correct absolute nutters but the risk was spelled out in full if anything they exaggerated.

If you understand the risks go for it is my view. My suspicion is the guy really down played them

But that's merely your suspicion.

viewcode said:

"Trump, Johnson and the real problem with populism: Helped to power by mainstream conservatives, this is a movement whose leaders cannot be expected to self-destruct". Jan-Werner Müller JUNE 17 2023, the Financial Times. See https://www.ft.com/content/a8c60111-09a7-4264-a503-a03e55394b70?sharetype=blocked

HYUFD said:

BORIS JOHNSON: Lefties sneer. But those brave souls on the submarine died in a cause - pushing out the frontiers of human knowledge - that's typically British and that fills me with pride
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12227209/BORIS-JOHNSON-brave-souls-Titan-sub-died-cause-fills-pride.html

HYUFD said:

BORIS JOHNSON: Lefties sneer. But those brave souls on the submarine died in a cause - pushing out the frontiers of human knowledge - that's typically British and that fills me with pride
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12227209/BORIS-JOHNSON-brave-souls-Titan-sub-died-cause-fills-pride.html

HYUFD said:

BORIS JOHNSON: Lefties sneer. But those brave souls on the submarine died in a cause - pushing out the frontiers of human knowledge - that's typically British and that fills me with pride
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12227209/BORIS-JOHNSON-brave-souls-Titan-sub-died-cause-fills-pride.html

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

BORIS JOHNSON: Lefties sneer. But those brave souls on the submarine died in a cause - pushing out the frontiers of human knowledge - that's typically British and that fills me with pride
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12227209/BORIS-JOHNSON-brave-souls-Titan-sub-died-cause-fills-pride.html

What on earth is he talking about? This was a slightly ghoulish tourist trip.

CorrectHorseBat said:

Boris is a fucking c*nt and a prick. Fuck the fat prick

viewcode said:

rcs1000 said:

viewcode said:

"Cliodynamics: can science decode the laws of history?", Peter Turchin, Aug 16, The Conversation, see https://theconversation.com/cliodynamics-can-science-decode-the-laws-of-history-8626

The Poverty of Historicism says hello.

I think I know what you mean, but can you pretend I'm a bit stupid and explain it to me in shortish words?