Restrictions on sales of cigarettes and increased powers for leaseholders to buy freeholds and remove punitive service charges and reforms for landlords to regain properties when needed.
Is this restriction with cigarettes a back door way of forcing identity cards on everyone?
Why would this restriction on cigarettes have any impact on the majority of people who don't smoke?
Someone will have to make good the lost tax revenue?
Loving Ange and Mikel's hypocrisy over VAR, absolutely glorious.
Ange has been entirely consistent. Arteta is a manchild.
Ange seems like a good guy, but it’s easy to be gregarious when you’ve not had any bad decisions against you, not to mention he had the biggest ever VAR mess ever up go his way.
What slightly disappointed me about him is that he never called the disallowed Liverpool goal out as the shocker it was - I think for the VAR discourse to be less toxic, and for standards to improve, those who profit from the errors should acknowledge them. As it is, they say “the refs have got a difficult job” when they get the decision, but rant when they get legged over
Newcastle have had two outrageous penalties awarded recently, but Eddie Howe never says they were lucky, none of them do - it’s as if they think by doing so they might get fewer decisions in future. The only one I can think of who called out a decision they got in their favour was Erling Haaland, for Nathan Ake’s goal for City vs Fulham
You can support the concept of ID cards but hate the proposed implementation of them under New Labour. There were not enough safeguards around data security.
The creation of a separate “VIP database”, for MPs, their families, and senior officials, was the giveaway.
For me the red flag was that my identity belonged to the card, not to me. If something happened to the data on card and it disagreed with my biometrics then I was the impostor. If the card is also used for almost everything (like phones are today) then I am instantly an outcast.
Today's phone apps are a good comparison. If something goes wrong with (say) your ApplePay app people just say "It's not working", it is not a big deal. If you need documents to prove your identity, you can choose from a number of them. It all stays in my/your control.
ID cards should not be given too much agency. At the end of the day if the card and I disagree then it is wrong and must be replaced. I am the living specification for my own identity.
Whereas turn it on its head and it is a very sensible idea. By turn on its head I mean the underlying documents and data are the thing - like the credit card on Apple Pay or the airline boarding pass in Apple Wallet and we each have a single convenient card, or app, that links to all the ID information we need including passport data. Just scan your smartphone at the border when arriving in a new country and that immediately shares your visa status, or number of days in Schengen in last 180.
Government can then access the aggregate anonymised data to help with public policy and planning of services.
The point is that the ONLY task of the card is verification, but a failure of that verification should not lock you out of everything. If the card is the access-key to obtaining a service then any failure locks you out of that service.
If the proposal for the card had been an alternative to having to offer a passport and utility bill then everything would have been fine. Card failure would simply result in you having to use other methods, but at least you would not be denied access to all sorts of systems / benefits.
There was even talk at one point of using this thing as a cash card, having all your medical data on it, etc. Anyone who hacked the system would have everything.
It was the stupidest idea ever, which is probably why they will try again to implement it.
King Charles and Queen Camilla take their places on their golden thrones and Black Rod calls MPs to the Lords before the King begins his speech setting out his government's legislative agenda
Big day for Charles this. Maybe the biggest.
More for Rishi, the King will be there still whoever wins the next election and appoint the next PM, Rishi probably won't unless some dramatic changes
Indeed and with time running out. He seems to be pinning his hopes on locking up criminals for longer. Let's see if that moves the dial.
You can support the concept of ID cards but hate the proposed implementation of them under New Labour. There were not enough safeguards around data security.
The creation of a separate “VIP database”, for MPs, their families, and senior officials, was the giveaway.
For me the red flag was that my identity belonged to the card, not to me. If something happened to the data on card and it disagreed with my biometrics then I was the impostor. If the card is also used for almost everything (like phones are today) then I am instantly an outcast.
Today's phone apps are a good comparison. If something goes wrong with (say) your ApplePay app people just say "It's not working", it is not a big deal. If you need documents to prove your identity, you can choose from a number of them. It all stays in my/your control.
ID cards should not be given too much agency. At the end of the day if the card and I disagree then it is wrong and must be replaced. I am the living specification for my own identity.
Whereas turn it on its head and it is a very sensible idea. By turn on its head I mean the underlying documents and data are the thing - like the credit card on Apple Pay or the airline boarding pass in Apple Wallet and we each have a single convenient card, or app, that links to all the ID information we need including passport data. Just scan your smartphone at the border when arriving in a new country and that immediately shares your visa status, or number of days in Schengen in last 180.
Government can then access the aggregate anonymised data to help with public policy and planning of services.
The point is that the ONLY task of the card is verification, but a failure of that verification should not lock you out of everything. If the card is the access-key to obtaining a service then any failure locks you out of that service.
If the proposal for the card had been an alternative to having to offer a passport and utility bill then everything would have been fine. Card failure would simply result in you having to use other methods, but at least you would not be denied access to all sorts of systems / benefits.
There was even talk at one point of using this thing as a cash card, having all your medical data on it, etc. Anyone who hacked the system would have everything.
It was the stupidest idea ever, which is probably why they will try again to implement it.
On other Kings Speech minutiae, I note that the Lord Chancellor did the backwards walk down the throne stairs, which I thought had gone out of fashion. Wore the full wig, too.
Restrictions on sales of cigarettes and increased powers for leaseholders to buy freeholds and remove punitive service charges and reforms for landlords to regain properties when needed.
Is this restriction with cigarettes a back door way of forcing identity cards on everyone?
Why would this restriction on cigarettes have any impact on the majority of people who don't smoke?
Someone will have to make good the lost tax revenue?
You can support the concept of ID cards but hate the proposed implementation of them under New Labour. There were not enough safeguards around data security.
The creation of a separate “VIP database”, for MPs, their families, and senior officials, was the giveaway.
For me the red flag was that my identity belonged to the card, not to me. If something happened to the data on card and it disagreed with my biometrics then I was the impostor. If the card is also used for almost everything (like phones are today) then I am instantly an outcast.
Today's phone apps are a good comparison. If something goes wrong with (say) your ApplePay app people just say "It's not working", it is not a big deal. If you need documents to prove your identity, you can choose from a number of them. It all stays in my/your control.
ID cards should not be given too much agency. At the end of the day if the card and I disagree then it is wrong and must be replaced. I am the living specification for my own identity.
Whereas turn it on its head and it is a very sensible idea. By turn on its head I mean the underlying documents and data are the thing - like the credit card on Apple Pay or the airline boarding pass in Apple Wallet and we each have a single convenient card, or app, that links to all the ID information we need including passport data. Just scan your smartphone at the border when arriving in a new country and that immediately shares your visa status, or number of days in Schengen in last 180.
Government can then access the aggregate anonymised data to help with public policy and planning of services.
The point is that the ONLY task of the card is verification, but a failure of that verification should not lock you out of everything. If the card is the access-key to obtaining a service then any failure locks you out of that service.
If the proposal for the card had been an alternative to having to offer a passport and utility bill then everything would have been fine. Card failure would simply result in you having to use other methods, but at least you would not be denied access to all sorts of systems / benefits.
There was even talk at one point of using this thing as a cash card, having all your medical data on it, etc. Anyone who hacked the system would have everything.
It was the stupidest idea ever, which is probably why they will try again to implement it.
Central bank digital currencies, coming soon…
Those actually sound like they will be done properly, providing an alternative for online transactions that frees everyone from the VISA/MasterCard duopoly.
Everyone have Sunak a lot of credit for the Windsor Framework at the time, but it has failed to fix the political impasse. What now?
New government in Westminster might just be the thing that unlocks it. Sometimes new personalities and a feeling of a new era can help. I certainly think that was the case for the GFA, as much as Major laid a lot of the groundwork for it.
Took a police helicopter and armed cops to subdue it, like a rampaging terrorist. There are rumours online about the injuries sustained.
The consistent problem is their ability to jump fences, so the policy of allowing them access to gardens even after the ban comes into place is not going to work.
It's a bit circumstantial - a guy said he 'understood' it was a big dog and a 'friend' had told him it was an XL Bully.
The problem is the owners. Also in saying to people that the issue is with the breed therefore implying all other dogs are safe. They are not in the wrong circumstances. The Dangerous Dogs Act is a bad piece of legislation and has not stopped the issues.
No. The problem in this case is the owners AND the breed. The XL Bully is a dog specifically bred to be psychotically truculent, aggressive - and super powerful, and liable to flip any moment. Professional dog breeders have been killed and eaten by them
What you’re saying is “it should be fine to walk around with a vintage WW2 flamethrower, if you know what you’re doing”
We don’t allow that, because it’s ridiculous. Ditto here
First of all, it would be good to get some facts. As @Carnyx says, there is a tendency for people to go "it's a big dog, it has to be a XL Bully" even when / if it's not (the initial hype is almost always not followed by a correction when it turns out the initial assumption is false).
Second, the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs Home and the Royal Kennel Club have all said a ban is the wrong measure. We get enough on here about criticising people who 'don't listen to the experts' but it seems the only experts they want to hear are those they agree with (to be fair, you are not in that category but some who liked your comment are).
Third, any dog is dangerous under the wrong conditions and it is wrong to encourage people to think there are safe breeds. You don't deal with them by the sound of things but plenty do and encouraging an attitude of 'it's a (e.g.) Lab, it must be nice' is the wrong way.
The experts in this case - the RSPCA - are a bunch of hacks and shills who have been entirely captured by a bunch of crackpot dog dealers and owners. Like you
Amazingly, the RSPCA wants to get ALL dangerous dog legislation repealed. Why? Wtf? How many mutilated children and dead people are acceptable, every year, so inadequate morons can walk around with the equivalent of a leopard on crystal meth, pleasantly called “Satan”?
What’s more, the RSPCA itself won’t insure XL Bullies. Because it knows they are way too dangerous. So when it comes to actual hard money their tune changes entirely
The RSPCA - and the other “dog charities” - have disgraced themselves on this
Some people have an almost religious belief in the idea that animals are good, humans are bad.
Animals are animals. They're not good or bad, but they are all fantastic in my book .Humans can be good and bad, and both at the same time. We've set ourselves up as being the supreme being on the planet and we have to live with the consequences of that and if that means some poor fecker gets savaged by a dog that humans have engineered, then that's something we have to live (or die) with. By all means, destroy these problem engineered dog breeds, but don't go blaming the animal. Ultimately, it's our fault.
Yes, it is absolutely our fault. And we have to fix it. Unfortunately, it means these poor dogs have to die and/or go extinct in the UK, which is a criminal shame
Once the ban is in place HMG must really pursue the dog breeders, with vehemence
I am glad you have recognised that point. The problem is the breeders and, in not a few cases, the owners. One of the reasons the Police like the DDA is that it gives them an excuse to go into the houses of people they know are wrong-uns but have not got enough proof of anything else to justify entry. That should suggest exactly the type of people who tend to own these dogs (but not all) and what they are like.
There is also a practical reason why organisations are against banning the breed and the DDA which it is like whack-a-mole. You ban one breed, another comes up and then there is another outcry. It doesn't deal with the problem at source. If you want a parallel with which you can no doubt empathise, it is like trying to add new drugs to the prohibited list - all that happens is another one is introduced which is legal because it is not prescribed but which could be just, or more, dangerous.
Everyone have Sunak a lot of credit for the Windsor Framework at the time, but it has failed to fix the political impasse. What now?
New government in Westminster might just be the thing that unlocks it. Sometimes new personalities and a feeling of a new era can help. I certainly think that was the case for the GFA, as much as Major laid a lot of the groundwork for it.
If the DUP loses seats at the general election, that might herald a change in their approach.
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
King Charles and Queen Camilla take their places on their golden thrones and Black Rod calls MPs to the Lords before the King begins his speech setting out his government's legislative agenda
Big day for Charles this. Maybe the biggest.
More for Rishi, the King will be there still whoever wins the next election and appoint the next PM, Rishi probably won't unless some dramatic changes
Indeed and with time running out. He seems to be pinning his hopes on locking up criminals for longer. Let's see if that moves the dial.
Sentencing as a solution to crime is the weird preoccupation both the Tories and Labour in their last period in office kept coming back to. I've never understood the appeal of it.
The solution to crime is both prevention in its widest sense (everything from home security to drugs counselling to controlling access to weapons), and effective policing. Once you're at the sentencing stage you've already failed.
1. The most words in a monarch's speech since 2005. 2. The fewest Bills in a monarch's speech since 2014.
Many words. Minimal action.
1. By how many? 2. By how many?
I know you wont reply as its not your style, but 1 and 2 are important to the point. If it was double the length and half the bills then yes, if one more word than the previous longest and one bill shorter then not so much.
Took a police helicopter and armed cops to subdue it, like a rampaging terrorist. There are rumours online about the injuries sustained.
The consistent problem is their ability to jump fences, so the policy of allowing them access to gardens even after the ban comes into place is not going to work.
It's a bit circumstantial - a guy said he 'understood' it was a big dog and a 'friend' had told him it was an XL Bully.
The problem is the owners. Also in saying to people that the issue is with the breed therefore implying all other dogs are safe. They are not in the wrong circumstances. The Dangerous Dogs Act is a bad piece of legislation and has not stopped the issues.
No. The problem in this case is the owners AND the breed. The XL Bully is a dog specifically bred to be psychotically truculent, aggressive - and super powerful, and liable to flip any moment. Professional dog breeders have been killed and eaten by them
What you’re saying is “it should be fine to walk around with a vintage WW2 flamethrower, if you know what you’re doing”
We don’t allow that, because it’s ridiculous. Ditto here
First of all, it would be good to get some facts. As @Carnyx says, there is a tendency for people to go "it's a big dog, it has to be a XL Bully" even when / if it's not (the initial hype is almost always not followed by a correction when it turns out the initial assumption is false).
Second, the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs Home and the Royal Kennel Club have all said a ban is the wrong measure. We get enough on here about criticising people who 'don't listen to the experts' but it seems the only experts they want to hear are those they agree with (to be fair, you are not in that category but some who liked your comment are).
Third, any dog is dangerous under the wrong conditions and it is wrong to encourage people to think there are safe breeds. You don't deal with them by the sound of things but plenty do and encouraging an attitude of 'it's a (e.g.) Lab, it must be nice' is the wrong way.
The experts in this case - the RSPCA - are a bunch of hacks and shills who have been entirely captured by a bunch of crackpot dog dealers and owners. Like you
Amazingly, the RSPCA wants to get ALL dangerous dog legislation repealed. Why? Wtf? How many mutilated children and dead people are acceptable, every year, so inadequate morons can walk around with the equivalent of a leopard on crystal meth, pleasantly called “Satan”?
What’s more, the RSPCA itself won’t insure XL Bullies. Because it knows they are way too dangerous. So when it comes to actual hard money their tune changes entirely
The RSPCA - and the other “dog charities” - have disgraced themselves on this
Some people have an almost religious belief in the idea that animals are good, humans are bad.
Animals are animals. They're not good or bad, but they are all fantastic in my book .Humans can be good and bad, and both at the same time. We've set ourselves up as being the supreme being on the planet and we have to live with the consequences of that and if that means some poor fecker gets savaged by a dog that humans have engineered, then that's something we have to live (or die) with. By all means, destroy these problem engineered dog breeds, but don't go blaming the animal. Ultimately, it's our fault.
Yes, it is absolutely our fault. And we have to fix it. Unfortunately, it means these poor dogs have to die and/or go extinct in the UK, which is a criminal shame
Once the ban is in place HMG must really pursue the dog breeders, with vehemence
I am glad you have recognised that point. The problem is the breeders and, in not a few cases, the owners. One of the reasons the Police like the DDA is that it gives them an excuse to go into the houses of people they know are wrong-uns but have not got enough proof of anything else to justify entry. That should suggest exactly the type of people who tend to own these dogs (but not all) and what they are like.
There is also a practical reason why organisations are against banning the breed and the DDA which it is like whack-a-mole. You ban one breed, another comes up and then there is another outcry. It doesn't deal with the problem at source. If you want a parallel with which you can no doubt empathise, it is like trying to add new drugs to the prohibited list - all that happens is another one is introduced which is legal because it is not prescribed but which could be just, or more, dangerous.
Lives and limbs will be saved by the ban, from the day it starts, that's all that matters right now
Personally I would ALSO make it compulsory for all large dogs to be muzzled in public, then there is no dispute on "breed", just basic size, 30kg say
And yes no doubt another dubious hybrid will emerge in time, and then we ban that too, eventually we can just get AI to sort it all out, with autonomous dog-killer drones floating down the streets, zapping any dodgy hound with a trillion-volt cano-cidal laser-slasher, so the dogs explode
King Charles and Queen Camilla take their places on their golden thrones and Black Rod calls MPs to the Lords before the King begins his speech setting out his government's legislative agenda
Big day for Charles this. Maybe the biggest.
More for Rishi, the King will be there still whoever wins the next election and appoint the next PM, Rishi probably won't unless some dramatic changes
Indeed and with time running out. He seems to be pinning his hopes on locking up criminals for longer. Let's see if that moves the dial.
Sentencing as a solution to crime is the weird preoccupation both the Tories and Labour in their last period in office kept coming back to. I've never understood the appeal of it.
The solution to crime is both prevention in its widest sense (everything from home security to drugs counselling to controlling access to weapons), and effective policing. Once you're at the sentencing stage you've already failed.
Where are these prisoners with longer sentences going to be placed?
The prisons are full to bursting.
It's more wishful thinking from a desperate Sunak.
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
Note to German government, you might want to throw everything at letting the Ukranians win the war, and not antagonise the Saudis by refusing to export Typhoons at the same time.
A Saudi order doesn't help the Germans much as Saudi jets come off the British FAL. The German FAL will be busy with the 38 'Quadriga' jets for the GAF until 2027 so they don't have the same political hemorrhoid that's on the verge of bursting like the British do with the imminent end of Eurofighter production at Wharton. The UK government don't want to be forced into a follow on Typhoon order, as they surely would be if the alternative were shuttering Wharton, as that will fuck up Tempest which is already running on the whiff of an oily rag when it comes to finances.
Airbus D&S would get to make 48 x centre fuselage sections in Germany for whatever that is worth.
For those of you who don't speak DuraAce
A Saudi order doesn't help the Germans much as because Saudi jets come off the British FAL final assembly line (where the jigsaw is assembled). The German FAL final assembly line will be busy with the 38 'Quadriga' jets 38 Typhoons built under a special German project for the GAF Luftwaffe until 2027, so they don't have the same political hemorrhoid that's on the verge of bursting like the British do with the imminent end of Eurofighter aircraft Typhoon production at Wharton BAE Wharton/Warton, a manufacturing plant in Lancashire.
The UK government don't want to be forced into a follow on buying more Typhoons (because they're out-of-date), as they surely would be if the alternative were shuttering Wharton closing the plant, as because that will fuck up Tempest (the brand new successor aircraft that will be really good. Y'know. Like HS2) which is already running on the whiff of an oily rag when it comes to finances. underfunded and out of control.
Took a police helicopter and armed cops to subdue it, like a rampaging terrorist. There are rumours online about the injuries sustained.
The consistent problem is their ability to jump fences, so the policy of allowing them access to gardens even after the ban comes into place is not going to work.
It's a bit circumstantial - a guy said he 'understood' it was a big dog and a 'friend' had told him it was an XL Bully.
The problem is the owners. Also in saying to people that the issue is with the breed therefore implying all other dogs are safe. They are not in the wrong circumstances. The Dangerous Dogs Act is a bad piece of legislation and has not stopped the issues.
No. The problem in this case is the owners AND the breed. The XL Bully is a dog specifically bred to be psychotically truculent, aggressive - and super powerful, and liable to flip any moment. Professional dog breeders have been killed and eaten by them
What you’re saying is “it should be fine to walk around with a vintage WW2 flamethrower, if you know what you’re doing”
We don’t allow that, because it’s ridiculous. Ditto here
First of all, it would be good to get some facts. As @Carnyx says, there is a tendency for people to go "it's a big dog, it has to be a XL Bully" even when / if it's not (the initial hype is almost always not followed by a correction when it turns out the initial assumption is false).
Second, the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs Home and the Royal Kennel Club have all said a ban is the wrong measure. We get enough on here about criticising people who 'don't listen to the experts' but it seems the only experts they want to hear are those they agree with (to be fair, you are not in that category but some who liked your comment are).
Third, any dog is dangerous under the wrong conditions and it is wrong to encourage people to think there are safe breeds. You don't deal with them by the sound of things but plenty do and encouraging an attitude of 'it's a (e.g.) Lab, it must be nice' is the wrong way.
The experts in this case - the RSPCA - are a bunch of hacks and shills who have been entirely captured by a bunch of crackpot dog dealers and owners. Like you
Amazingly, the RSPCA wants to get ALL dangerous dog legislation repealed. Why? Wtf? How many mutilated children and dead people are acceptable, every year, so inadequate morons can walk around with the equivalent of a leopard on crystal meth, pleasantly called “Satan”?
What’s more, the RSPCA itself won’t insure XL Bullies. Because it knows they are way too dangerous. So when it comes to actual hard money their tune changes entirely
The RSPCA - and the other “dog charities” - have disgraced themselves on this
Some people have an almost religious belief in the idea that animals are good, humans are bad.
Animals are animals. They're not good or bad, but they are all fantastic in my book .Humans can be good and bad, and both at the same time. We've set ourselves up as being the supreme being on the planet and we have to live with the consequences of that and if that means some poor fecker gets savaged by a dog that humans have engineered, then that's something we have to live (or die) with. By all means, destroy these problem engineered dog breeds, but don't go blaming the animal. Ultimately, it's our fault.
Yes, it is absolutely our fault. And we have to fix it. Unfortunately, it means these poor dogs have to die and/or go extinct in the UK, which is a criminal shame
Once the ban is in place HMG must really pursue the dog breeders, with vehemence
I am glad you have recognised that point. The problem is the breeders and, in not a few cases, the owners. One of the reasons the Police like the DDA is that it gives them an excuse to go into the houses of people they know are wrong-uns but have not got enough proof of anything else to justify entry. That should suggest exactly the type of people who tend to own these dogs (but not all) and what they are like.
There is also a practical reason why organisations are against banning the breed and the DDA which it is like whack-a-mole. You ban one breed, another comes up and then there is another outcry. It doesn't deal with the problem at source. If you want a parallel with which you can no doubt empathise, it is like trying to add new drugs to the prohibited list - all that happens is another one is introduced which is legal because it is not prescribed but which could be just, or more, dangerous.
Lives and limbs will be saved by the ban, from the day it starts, that's all that matters right now
Personally I would ALSO make it compulsory for all large dogs to be muzzled in public, then there is no dispute on "breed", just basic size, 30kg say
And yes no doubt another dubious hybrid will emerge in time, and then we ban that too, eventually we can just get AI to sort it all out, with autonomous dog-killer drones floating down the streets, zapping any dodgy hound with a trillion-volt cano-cidal laser-slasher, so the dogs explode
Can the drones also zap any owner who doesn't pick up their dog's poop, while we're at it?
King Charles and Queen Camilla take their places on their golden thrones and Black Rod calls MPs to the Lords before the King begins his speech setting out his government's legislative agenda
Big day for Charles this. Maybe the biggest.
More for Rishi, the King will be there still whoever wins the next election and appoint the next PM, Rishi probably won't unless some dramatic changes
Indeed and with time running out. He seems to be pinning his hopes on locking up criminals for longer. Let's see if that moves the dial.
Sentencing as a solution to crime is the weird preoccupation both the Tories and Labour in their last period in office kept coming back to. I've never understood the appeal of it.
The solution to crime is both prevention in its widest sense (everything from home security to drugs counselling to controlling access to weapons), and effective policing. Once you're at the sentencing stage you've already failed.
Anyone watching Inside Maghaberry prison series on TV?
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
King Charles and Queen Camilla take their places on their golden thrones and Black Rod calls MPs to the Lords before the King begins his speech setting out his government's legislative agenda
Big day for Charles this. Maybe the biggest.
More for Rishi, the King will be there still whoever wins the next election and appoint the next PM, Rishi probably won't unless some dramatic changes
Indeed and with time running out. He seems to be pinning his hopes on locking up criminals for longer. Let's see if that moves the dial.
Sentencing as a solution to crime is the weird preoccupation both the Tories and Labour in their last period in office kept coming back to. I've never understood the appeal of it.
The solution to crime is both prevention in its widest sense (everything from home security to drugs counselling to controlling access to weapons), and effective policing. Once you're at the sentencing stage you've already failed.
Where are these prisoners with longer sentences going to be placed?
The prisons are full to bursting.
It's more wishful thinking from a desperate Sunak.
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
The Gaza Health Ministry use individual IDs provided to Gazans by the Israeli state, and is also typically the source used by many Israeli news channels (or at least the numbers used by many Israeli news match those numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry).
A few days ago I asked for a better source, with evidence of why it would be better than the GHM, and all I got was "GHM is Hamas, therefore cannot trust, therefore shrug"
You can support the concept of ID cards but hate the proposed implementation of them under New Labour. There were not enough safeguards around data security.
The creation of a separate “VIP database”, for MPs, their families, and senior officials, was the giveaway.
For me the red flag was that my identity belonged to the card, not to me. If something happened to the data on card and it disagreed with my biometrics then I was the impostor. If the card is also used for almost everything (like phones are today) then I am instantly an outcast.
Today's phone apps are a good comparison. If something goes wrong with (say) your ApplePay app people just say "It's not working", it is not a big deal. If you need documents to prove your identity, you can choose from a number of them. It all stays in my/your control.
ID cards should not be given too much agency. At the end of the day if the card and I disagree then it is wrong and must be replaced. I am the living specification for my own identity.
Whereas turn it on its head and it is a very sensible idea. By turn on its head I mean the underlying documents and data are the thing - like the credit card on Apple Pay or the airline boarding pass in Apple Wallet and we each have a single convenient card, or app, that links to all the ID information we need including passport data. Just scan your smartphone at the border when arriving in a new country and that immediately shares your visa status, or number of days in Schengen in last 180.
Government can then access the aggregate anonymised data to help with public policy and planning of services.
The point is that the ONLY task of the card is verification, but a failure of that verification should not lock you out of everything. If the card is the access-key to obtaining a service then any failure locks you out of that service.
If the proposal for the card had been an alternative to having to offer a passport and utility bill then everything would have been fine. Card failure would simply result in you having to use other methods, but at least you would not be denied access to all sorts of systems / benefits.
There was even talk at one point of using this thing as a cash card, having all your medical data on it, etc. Anyone who hacked the system would have everything.
It was the stupidest idea ever, which is probably why they will try again to implement it.
Central bank digital currencies, coming soon…
Those actually sound like they will be done properly, providing an alternative for online transactions that frees everyone from the VISA/MasterCard duopoly.
Let’s just say that the disadvantages considerably outweigh the advantages, for all the reasons of ID cards and more.
You’re replacing a bank that you generally trust with a government you don’t trust, who can un-person you at their will (or by accident).
See the example of the Canadian truckers de-banked by Trudeau during the pandemic, or people having their identity stolen being told that the system is right and they need to go and get new fingerprints.
Restrictions on sales of cigarettes and increased powers for leaseholders to buy freeholds and remove punitive service charges and reforms for landlords to regain properties when needed.
Is this restriction with cigarettes a back door way of forcing identity cards on everyone?
I support ID cards , not sure why there’s so much controversy over this issue . They have them all over Europe without problems.
For the 1,345,456th time.
The problem with ID cards is not the id card. It’s not even the unique id number* It’s not even using the unique id number as a key in multiple databases.
It’s the ludicrously unsafe idea of connecting all your personal data together and making it accessible to everyone in “government”
This is exactly what was proposed, planned and was on he verge of being implanted with the last attempt at ID cards (killed by the coalition)
Aside from being unsafe, unworkable and a few other things, it would be completely incompatible with data security legislation on the books.
*which should actually be a ID code, with checksums etc.
It would make sense to use the NI number which the vast majority of us have anyway.
The NI numbers are a disaster - worse than the NHS ids. Tons of duplicates, mistakes, bogus applications.
Ah, ok, I didn't appreciate that.
Thanks also to Viewcode and LostPassword for making the same point.
But if there are 'tons of duplicates and mistakes' how do people get their pensions paid once they get to State Retirement Age?
Restrictions on sales of cigarettes and increased powers for leaseholders to buy freeholds and remove punitive service charges and reforms for landlords to regain properties when needed.
Is this restriction with cigarettes a back door way of forcing identity cards on everyone?
I support ID cards , not sure why there’s so much controversy over this issue . They have them all over Europe without problems.
For the 1,345,456th time.
The problem with ID cards is not the id card. It’s not even the unique id number* It’s not even using the unique id number as a key in multiple databases.
It’s the ludicrously unsafe idea of connecting all your personal data together and making it accessible to everyone in “government”
This is exactly what was proposed, planned and was on he verge of being implanted with the last attempt at ID cards (killed by the coalition)
Aside from being unsafe, unworkable and a few other things, it would be completely incompatible with data security legislation on the books.
*which should actually be a ID code, with checksums etc.
It would make sense to use the NI number which the vast majority of us have anyway.
The NI numbers are a disaster - worse than the NHS ids. Tons of duplicates, mistakes, bogus applications.
Ah, ok, I didn't appreciate that.
But if there are 'tons of duplicates and mistakes' how do people get their pensions paid once they get to State Retirement Age?
Indeed. Sometimes the right people get the right pension. Lots of cross checking and manual intervention required.
Okay - how? When you have an almost even split on something as fundamental as independence, what is the way forward? Will Westminster allow for more devolved powers? Will Westminster reduce devolved powers, or get rid of them entirely (as some Conservatives threaten)?
If Scotland keeps voting for a Nationalist majority in Holyrood, but not for independence - they must want something the parties are promising.
I think Germany's problems are (a) an end to cheap Russian enemy (b) lots of people can now do high quality manufacturing, but a lot cheaper than Germany does it.
To give one example, I've driven Japanese cars for 25 years now. They are excellent, reliable, and easy to use. And, a damn sight cheaper than the German equivalents.
A Lexus does not have the badge appeal of the German marques (or German-owned British marques) so it is cheaper.
It's difficult to say with absolute precision, because it's hard to spec. them exactly the same, but I'd say Lexus and BMW are priced about the same.
Lexus RC F Carbon £83,560.00 BMW M4 Competition £82,520.00
I'd say that Lexus has a better reputation than the former premium German marques. BMWs. Audis & Mercedes are the new Vauxhall Corsas.
Lexuses (Lexi?) are seen as staid, but likely not driven by idiots.
Just came back from town where there was a car (ironically a Lexus) and a van parked across a dropped kerb for pedestrian access to the market place, right next to an empty row of parking spaces.
You can read "K" at one end, and "LEAR" at the other end.
BMW further up the street parked precisely across a house driveway, between 2 rows of empty (free) parking spaces.
Restrictions on sales of cigarettes and increased powers for leaseholders to buy freeholds and remove punitive service charges and reforms for landlords to regain properties when needed.
Is this restriction with cigarettes a back door way of forcing identity cards on everyone?
I support ID cards , not sure why there’s so much controversy over this issue . They have them all over Europe without problems.
For the 1,345,456th time.
The problem with ID cards is not the id card. It’s not even the unique id number* It’s not even using the unique id number as a key in multiple databases.
It’s the ludicrously unsafe idea of connecting all your personal data together and making it accessible to everyone in “government”
This is exactly what was proposed, planned and was on he verge of being implanted with the last attempt at ID cards (killed by the coalition)
Aside from being unsafe, unworkable and a few other things, it would be completely incompatible with data security legislation on the books.
*which should actually be a ID code, with checksums etc.
It would make sense to use the NI number which the vast majority of us have anyway.
The NI numbers are a disaster - worse than the NHS ids. Tons of duplicates, mistakes, bogus applications.
Ah, ok, I didn't appreciate that.
But if there are 'tons of duplicates and mistakes' how do people get their pensions paid once they get to State Retirement Age?
Indeed. Sometimes the right people get the right pension. Lots of cross checking and manual intervention required.
Tbf I should have know this really.
We spent months getting Mrs P's State Pension sorted out because for 10 years she'd worked for a GP practice where the practice manager had submitted her NI contribution with two characters transposed in her NI number, so she appeared to have a 10 year gap in contributions. I thought NI numbers had a check digit but if so HMRC weren;t checking it.
And still Hamas has not thought - hmm, maybe we should release those hostages? Maybe this is our fault?
I mean, it depends on who you trust, but some reports are coming through that Israel is not willing to talk to Hamas about releasing the hostages; we know with the older women who were released on medical grounds that Hamas wanted to make sure they were released safely and had to talk to other Middle Eastern countries to safely release them. There are also reports that some hostages have been killed by Israeli bombing campaigns, and families of those taken hostage are protesting the government for not acting in the interests of the hostages.
Hamas could just release the hostages into Gaza without warning - but that would likely be as much as a death sentence as killing them themselves.
Restrictions on sales of cigarettes and increased powers for leaseholders to buy freeholds and remove punitive service charges and reforms for landlords to regain properties when needed.
Is this restriction with cigarettes a back door way of forcing identity cards on everyone?
I support ID cards , not sure why there’s so much controversy over this issue . They have them all over Europe without problems.
For the 1,345,456th time.
The problem with ID cards is not the id card. It’s not even the unique id number* It’s not even using the unique id number as a key in multiple databases.
It’s the ludicrously unsafe idea of connecting all your personal data together and making it accessible to everyone in “government”
This is exactly what was proposed, planned and was on he verge of being implanted with the last attempt at ID cards (killed by the coalition)
Aside from being unsafe, unworkable and a few other things, it would be completely incompatible with data security legislation on the books.
*which should actually be a ID code, with checksums etc.
It would make sense to use the NI number which the vast majority of us have anyway.
The NI numbers are a disaster - worse than the NHS ids. Tons of duplicates, mistakes, bogus applications.
Ah, ok, I didn't appreciate that.
But if there are 'tons of duplicates and mistakes' how do people get their pensions paid once they get to State Retirement Age?
Indeed. Sometimes the right people get the right pension. Lots of cross checking and manual intervention required.
Tbf I should have know this really.
We spent months getting Mrs P's State Pension sorted out because for 10 years she'd worked for a GP practice where the practice manager had submitted her NI contribution with two characters transposed in her NI number, so she appeared to have a 10 year gap in contributions. I thought NI numbers had a check digit but if so HMRC weren;t checking it.
NI doesn't have a checksum - NI numbers date from an era when such things weren't even thought of...
Took a police helicopter and armed cops to subdue it, like a rampaging terrorist. There are rumours online about the injuries sustained.
The consistent problem is their ability to jump fences, so the policy of allowing them access to gardens even after the ban comes into place is not going to work.
It's a bit circumstantial - a guy said he 'understood' it was a big dog and a 'friend' had told him it was an XL Bully.
The problem is the owners. Also in saying to people that the issue is with the breed therefore implying all other dogs are safe. They are not in the wrong circumstances. The Dangerous Dogs Act is a bad piece of legislation and has not stopped the issues.
No. The problem in this case is the owners AND the breed. The XL Bully is a dog specifically bred to be psychotically truculent, aggressive - and super powerful, and liable to flip any moment. Professional dog breeders have been killed and eaten by them
What you’re saying is “it should be fine to walk around with a vintage WW2 flamethrower, if you know what you’re doing”
We don’t allow that, because it’s ridiculous. Ditto here
First of all, it would be good to get some facts. As @Carnyx says, there is a tendency for people to go "it's a big dog, it has to be a XL Bully" even when / if it's not (the initial hype is almost always not followed by a correction when it turns out the initial assumption is false).
Second, the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs Home and the Royal Kennel Club have all said a ban is the wrong measure. We get enough on here about criticising people who 'don't listen to the experts' but it seems the only experts they want to hear are those they agree with (to be fair, you are not in that category but some who liked your comment are).
Third, any dog is dangerous under the wrong conditions and it is wrong to encourage people to think there are safe breeds. You don't deal with them by the sound of things but plenty do and encouraging an attitude of 'it's a (e.g.) Lab, it must be nice' is the wrong way.
The experts in this case - the RSPCA - are a bunch of hacks and shills who have been entirely captured by a bunch of crackpot dog dealers and owners. Like you
Amazingly, the RSPCA wants to get ALL dangerous dog legislation repealed. Why? Wtf? How many mutilated children and dead people are acceptable, every year, so inadequate morons can walk around with the equivalent of a leopard on crystal meth, pleasantly called “Satan”?
What’s more, the RSPCA itself won’t insure XL Bullies. Because it knows they are way too dangerous. So when it comes to actual hard money their tune changes entirely
The RSPCA - and the other “dog charities” - have disgraced themselves on this
Some people have an almost religious belief in the idea that animals are good, humans are bad.
Animals are animals. They're not good or bad, but they are all fantastic in my book .Humans can be good and bad, and both at the same time. We've set ourselves up as being the supreme being on the planet and we have to live with the consequences of that and if that means some poor fecker gets savaged by a dog that humans have engineered, then that's something we have to live (or die) with. By all means, destroy these problem engineered dog breeds, but don't go blaming the animal. Ultimately, it's our fault.
Yes, it is absolutely our fault. And we have to fix it. Unfortunately, it means these poor dogs have to die and/or go extinct in the UK, which is a criminal shame
Once the ban is in place HMG must really pursue the dog breeders, with vehemence
I am glad you have recognised that point. The problem is the breeders and, in not a few cases, the owners. One of the reasons the Police like the DDA is that it gives them an excuse to go into the houses of people they know are wrong-uns but have not got enough proof of anything else to justify entry. That should suggest exactly the type of people who tend to own these dogs (but not all) and what they are like.
There is also a practical reason why organisations are against banning the breed and the DDA which it is like whack-a-mole. You ban one breed, another comes up and then there is another outcry. It doesn't deal with the problem at source. If you want a parallel with which you can no doubt empathise, it is like trying to add new drugs to the prohibited list - all that happens is another one is introduced which is legal because it is not prescribed but which could be just, or more, dangerous.
If I have it correctly, it is one breed added in 32 years.
Okay - how? When you have an almost even split on something as fundamental as independence, what is the way forward? Will Westminster allow for more devolved powers? Will Westminster reduce devolved powers, or get rid of them entirely (as some Conservatives threaten)?
If Scotland keeps voting for a Nationalist majority in Holyrood, but not for independence - they must want something the parties are promising.
Scotland has more powers than almost any other devolved nation on earth. Their governments in Holyrood need to start using THEM to sort out Scotland's problems, Westminster is not to going to devolve further powers, and is not going to allow another Sindyref for a long time. Awareness of that should clear minds in Edinburgh
Moreover, this is the only sensible, practical route TO independence. For ten years the SNP have tried the whining, bleating, mewling, threatening and blaming-everything-on-London technique. For a long time it worked, electorally if not constitutionally, but now it is failing on both counts, the SNP are plunging in the polls, the London govt doesn't give a fuck about Sindyref2, and there is nothing the Nats can do
The only choice now is stop moaning, go back to basics, get re-elected as the Scottish government, then make a success of it so Scotland becomes more prosperous so the Scottish people begin to think, once again, "Yes, this could work, we can be independent"
Do that, and let a generation pass, and Scottish indy will once again be a realistic prospect. But it requires the Nats to show a great deal of maturity, not something they have recently evinced
Restrictions on sales of cigarettes and increased powers for leaseholders to buy freeholds and remove punitive service charges and reforms for landlords to regain properties when needed.
Is this restriction with cigarettes a back door way of forcing identity cards on everyone?
I support ID cards , not sure why there’s so much controversy over this issue . They have them all over Europe without problems.
For the 1,345,456th time.
The problem with ID cards is not the id card. It’s not even the unique id number* It’s not even using the unique id number as a key in multiple databases.
It’s the ludicrously unsafe idea of connecting all your personal data together and making it accessible to everyone in “government”
This is exactly what was proposed, planned and was on he verge of being implanted with the last attempt at ID cards (killed by the coalition)
Aside from being unsafe, unworkable and a few other things, it would be completely incompatible with data security legislation on the books.
*which should actually be a ID code, with checksums etc.
It would make sense to use the NI number which the vast majority of us have anyway.
The NI numbers are a disaster - worse than the NHS ids. Tons of duplicates, mistakes, bogus applications.
Ah, ok, I didn't appreciate that.
But if there are 'tons of duplicates and mistakes' how do people get their pensions paid once they get to State Retirement Age?
Indeed. Sometimes the right people get the right pension. Lots of cross checking and manual intervention required.
Tbf I should have know this really.
We spent months getting Mrs P's State Pension sorted out because for 10 years she'd worked for a GP practice where the practice manager had submitted her NI contribution with two characters transposed in her NI number, so she appeared to have a 10 year gap in contributions. I thought NI numbers had a check digit but if so HMRC weren;t checking it.
NI doesn't have a checksum - NI numbers date from an era when such things weren't even thought of...
Imagine all those extra digits, taking up all those extra bytes in the data storage.
Does anyone know what is meant in the King's Speech by 'protecting football clubs?'
Against the European Super League?
I have checked and I believe it is implementing a White Paper on Football Governance. It is proposed to establish a regulator for the top 5 tiers of English football to protect it's viability and inheritance. Make of that what you will.
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
The Gaza Health Ministry use individual IDs provided to Gazans by the Israeli state, and is also typically the source used by many Israeli news channels (or at least the numbers used by many Israeli news match those numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry).
A few days ago I asked for a better source, with evidence of why it would be better than the GHM, and all I got was "GHM is Hamas, therefore cannot trust, therefore shrug"
Yes it's the best source we have. Unfortunately the hospital incident has given those who wish to deny the undeniable - that thousands of innocent Palestinians inc many many children are being killed - a sliver of a fig leaf for doing so.
Such a screw up by the media, that hospital incident. I watched the rolling news live that evening and I went to bed convinced the Israelis had bombed the hospital and killed 500 people. The next day it all unravelled and the truth was something rather different as regards culprit and scale.
Does anyone know what is meant in the King's Speech by 'protecting football clubs?'
Against the European Super League?
I have checked and I believe it is implementing a White Paper on Football Governance. It is proposed to establish a regulator for the top 5 tiers of English football to protect it's viability and inheritance. Make of that what you will.
Great to hear what you think Scotland should do. I‘m sure Scotland will think on after hearing this.
Well, given that Holyrood needs the express permission of the British people, in the British parliament at Westminster, if Holyrood ever wants another indyref, then yes you should indeed care what British people outside Scotland think. We hold the keys to the indy-door. The fact you won't acknowledge this says rather a lot
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
The Gaza Health Ministry use individual IDs provided to Gazans by the Israeli state, and is also typically the source used by many Israeli news channels (or at least the numbers used by many Israeli news match those numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry).
A few days ago I asked for a better source, with evidence of why it would be better than the GHM, and all I got was "GHM is Hamas, therefore cannot trust, therefore shrug"
Are you seriously still stuck on this?
1) You, personally, do not need to have accurate numbers. It makes absolutely no difference to you, and there is not some magic number of deaths which would push Israel from being in the right to being in the wrong.
2) Hamas' official number is probably ballpark accurate for deaths of Gazans due to the conflict since October 7. The issues with it are a) you have no idea how many of those deaths were caused directly by Hamas (eg: misfiring rockets, deliberate attacks on fleeing human shields who'd been ordered to remain in place instead of following evacuation orders, random murder of gay people just because they can), and b) it does not break down between combatants - ie, legitimate military targets - and innocent civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) All the deaths are on Hamas anyway, since they started this war and continue to deliberately place their own people in harm's way by use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes. This is, in case it needs to be repeated, a war crime.
Does anyone know what is meant in the King's Speech by 'protecting football clubs?'
Against the European Super League?
I have checked and I believe it is implementing a White Paper on Football Governance. It is proposed to establish a regulator for the top 5 tiers of English football to protect it's viability and inheritance. Make of that what you will.
The highlights are measures to stop clubs leaving the existing structure (such as Euro Super League), and greater controls on suitability of shareholders (such as Abramovich, who ended up sanctioned and forced to sell Chelsea).
Great to hear what you think Scotland should do. I‘m sure Scotland will think on after hearing this.
Well, given that Holyrood needs the express permission of the British people, in the British parliament at Westminster, if Holyrood ever wants another indyref, then yes you should indeed care what British people outside Scotland think. We hold the keys to the indy-door. The fact you won't acknowledge this says rather a lot
Do you not think that might be part of the problem, especially for people who are ScotNats? Their devolved government is always somewhat precarious because, at the end of the day, what Westminster gives it can take away.
Everybody knows that Brexit has doomed the Union, just like it has destroyed the economy. Loads of the Remainers on here said so.
So the poll is clearly wrong.
Yes, and let's not forget the incredible wave of YES supporting young people, about to overwhelm all the sad old dying NO voters. All those YES voting 15 year olds in 2014 will now be able to vote, and all the octogenarian NO voters will now be dead, so the YES vote will have surged past the oh
And still Hamas has not thought - hmm, maybe we should release those hostages? Maybe this is our fault?
I mean, it depends on who you trust, but some reports are coming through that Israel is not willing to talk to Hamas about releasing the hostages; we know with the older women who were released on medical grounds that Hamas wanted to make sure they were released safely and had to talk to other Middle Eastern countries to safely release them. There are also reports that some hostages have been killed by Israeli bombing campaigns, and families of those taken hostage are protesting the government for not acting in the interests of the hostages.
Hamas could just release the hostages into Gaza without warning - but that would likely be as much as a death sentence as killing them themselves.
Hamas is keeping Israeli hostages on humanitarian grounds.
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
The Gaza Health Ministry use individual IDs provided to Gazans by the Israeli state, and is also typically the source used by many Israeli news channels (or at least the numbers used by many Israeli news match those numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry).
A few days ago I asked for a better source, with evidence of why it would be better than the GHM, and all I got was "GHM is Hamas, therefore cannot trust, therefore shrug"
Yes it's the best source we have. Unfortunately the hospital incident has given those who wish to deny the undeniable - that thousands of innocent Palestinians inc many many children are being killed - a sliver of a fig leaf for doing so.
Such a screw up by the media, that hospital incident. I watched the rolling news live that evening and I went to bed convinced the Israelis had bombed the hospital and killed 500 people. The next day it all unravelled and the truth was something rather different as regards culprit and scale.
That’s all most of them need. Metaphorically of course.
Great to hear what you think Scotland should do. I‘m sure Scotland will think on after hearing this.
Well, given that Holyrood needs the express permission of the British people, in the British parliament at Westminster, if Holyrood ever wants another indyref, then yes you should indeed care what British people outside Scotland think. We hold the keys to the indy-door. The fact you won't acknowledge this says rather a lot
Do you not think that might be part of the problem, especially for people who are ScotNats? Their devolved government is always somewhat precarious because, at the end of the day, what Westminster gives it can take away.
More clarity of purpose at Westminster solves that problem.
NO, YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANOTHER REFERENDUM
There, sorted
Quebec is now further from indy than it has been in many decades, I predict the same will happen to Scotland. Indy will become a yearning aspiration, for many, but not something to actually be done, any time soon, because of all the extreme hassle and pain - so it will forever recede, just out of reach
Great to hear what you think Scotland should do. I‘m sure Scotland will think on after hearing this.
Well, given that Holyrood needs the express permission of the British people, in the British parliament at Westminster, if Holyrood ever wants another indyref, then yes you should indeed care what British people outside Scotland think. We hold the keys to the indy-door. The fact you won't acknowledge this says rather a lot
Who’s not acknowledging it? I’m quite happy to state that the same people who inflicted a 13 year shitberg of Toryism and Brexit on Scotland will keep electing pols who will obstruct a second Indy ref whatever the circumstances because they’re scared they’d lose it. The idea that a bunch of reactionary Spectatorites can or should be negotiated with on the issue is for the birds.
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
The Gaza Health Ministry use individual IDs provided to Gazans by the Israeli state, and is also typically the source used by many Israeli news channels (or at least the numbers used by many Israeli news match those numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry).
A few days ago I asked for a better source, with evidence of why it would be better than the GHM, and all I got was "GHM is Hamas, therefore cannot trust, therefore shrug"
Are you seriously still stuck on this?
1) You, personally, do not need to have accurate numbers. It makes absolutely no difference to you, and there is not some magic number of deaths which would push Israel from being in the right to being in the wrong.
2) Hamas' official number is probably ballpark accurate for deaths of Gazans due to the conflict since October 7. The issues with it are a) you have no idea how many of those deaths were caused directly by Hamas (eg: misfiring rockets, deliberate attacks on fleeing human shields who'd been ordered to remain in place instead of following evacuation orders, random murder of gay people just because they can), and b) it does not break down between combatants - ie, legitimate military targets - and innocent civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) All the deaths are on Hamas anyway, since they started this war and continue to deliberately place their own people in harm's way by use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes. This is, in case it needs to be repeated, a war crime.
I mean, I responded to someone posting about the question "Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?". The answer, in my mind, is "it's the best we have" and I therefore feel if anyone thinks otherwise, it is incumbent on them to say what source is better.
The death toll discussed regarding Hamas' attack on Israel doesn't distinguish between "legitimate military targets" and civilians; indeed very little coverage was given to the attacks on "legitimate military targets" near the border fence. Should I remove ~350 from the Israeli Oct 7th death count based on this?
On the last point we just fundamentally disagree - even if you take the position that Hamas is only motivated by pure evil and hatred, Israel had other options as a response that did not include dropping more bombs on Gaza in a week than the US dropped on Afghanistan in a year. How many dead Hamas soldiers make it okay to kill 4,000 children? I think Hamas' targeting of civilians is morally abhorrent, and it is also morally abhorrent when Israel does it too. Why do you feel the need to absolve the state of Israel for what it is doing, for what the UN is calling a potential genocide?
Took a police helicopter and armed cops to subdue it, like a rampaging terrorist. There are rumours online about the injuries sustained.
The consistent problem is their ability to jump fences, so the policy of allowing them access to gardens even after the ban comes into place is not going to work.
It's a bit circumstantial - a guy said he 'understood' it was a big dog and a 'friend' had told him it was an XL Bully.
The problem is the owners. Also in saying to people that the issue is with the breed therefore implying all other dogs are safe. They are not in the wrong circumstances. The Dangerous Dogs Act is a bad piece of legislation and has not stopped the issues.
No. The problem in this case is the owners AND the breed. The XL Bully is a dog specifically bred to be psychotically truculent, aggressive - and super powerful, and liable to flip any moment. Professional dog breeders have been killed and eaten by them
What you’re saying is “it should be fine to walk around with a vintage WW2 flamethrower, if you know what you’re doing”
We don’t allow that, because it’s ridiculous. Ditto here
First of all, it would be good to get some facts. As @Carnyx says, there is a tendency for people to go "it's a big dog, it has to be a XL Bully" even when / if it's not (the initial hype is almost always not followed by a correction when it turns out the initial assumption is false).
Second, the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs Home and the Royal Kennel Club have all said a ban is the wrong measure. We get enough on here about criticising people who 'don't listen to the experts' but it seems the only experts they want to hear are those they agree with (to be fair, you are not in that category but some who liked your comment are).
Third, any dog is dangerous under the wrong conditions and it is wrong to encourage people to think there are safe breeds. You don't deal with them by the sound of things but plenty do and encouraging an attitude of 'it's a (e.g.) Lab, it must be nice' is the wrong way.
The experts in this case - the RSPCA - are a bunch of hacks and shills who have been entirely captured by a bunch of crackpot dog dealers and owners. Like you
Amazingly, the RSPCA wants to get ALL dangerous dog legislation repealed. Why? Wtf? How many mutilated children and dead people are acceptable, every year, so inadequate morons can walk around with the equivalent of a leopard on crystal meth, pleasantly called “Satan”?
What’s more, the RSPCA itself won’t insure XL Bullies. Because it knows they are way too dangerous. So when it comes to actual hard money their tune changes entirely
The RSPCA - and the other “dog charities” - have disgraced themselves on this
Some people have an almost religious belief in the idea that animals are good, humans are bad.
Animals are animals. They're not good or bad, but they are all fantastic in my book .Humans can be good and bad, and both at the same time. We've set ourselves up as being the supreme being on the planet and we have to live with the consequences of that and if that means some poor fecker gets savaged by a dog that humans have engineered, then that's something we have to live (or die) with. By all means, destroy these problem engineered dog breeds, but don't go blaming the animal. Ultimately, it's our fault.
Yes, it is absolutely our fault. And we have to fix it. Unfortunately, it means these poor dogs have to die and/or go extinct in the UK, which is a criminal shame
Once the ban is in place HMG must really pursue the dog breeders, with vehemence
I am glad you have recognised that point. The problem is the breeders and, in not a few cases, the owners. One of the reasons the Police like the DDA is that it gives them an excuse to go into the houses of people they know are wrong-uns but have not got enough proof of anything else to justify entry. That should suggest exactly the type of people who tend to own these dogs (but not all) and what they are like.
There is also a practical reason why organisations are against banning the breed and the DDA which it is like whack-a-mole. You ban one breed, another comes up and then there is another outcry. It doesn't deal with the problem at source. If you want a parallel with which you can no doubt empathise, it is like trying to add new drugs to the prohibited list - all that happens is another one is introduced which is legal because it is not prescribed but which could be just, or more, dangerous.
I think Germany's problems are (a) an end to cheap Russian enemy (b) lots of people can now do high quality manufacturing, but a lot cheaper than Germany does it.
To give one example, I've driven Japanese cars for 25 years now. They are excellent, reliable, and easy to use. And, a damn sight cheaper than the German equivalents.
A Lexus does not have the badge appeal of the German marques (or German-owned British marques) so it is cheaper.
It's difficult to say with absolute precision, because it's hard to spec. them exactly the same, but I'd say Lexus and BMW are priced about the same.
Lexus RC F Carbon £83,560.00 BMW M4 Competition £82,520.00
I'd say that Lexus has a better reputation than the former premium German marques. BMWs. Audis & Mercedes are the new Vauxhall Corsas.
The Lexus is almost certainly better built but the interiors aren't as good as the upper end of the German big 3's offerings. When I was in Doha earlier this year I took a taxi that was a Toyota Camry. I thought it was a brand new car but it had 240,000km on it. Toyota/Lexus certainly know how to do mass production and quality management.
The Germans have some excellent cars in their ranges (M4 CSL, RS5, GT63) but also quite a lot of utter dross with an amazing amount of cheap materials and engineering shortcuts.
You can support the concept of ID cards but hate the proposed implementation of them under New Labour. There were not enough safeguards around data security.
The creation of a separate “VIP database”, for MPs, their families, and senior officials, was the giveaway.
For me the red flag was that my identity belonged to the card, not to me. If something happened to the data on card and it disagreed with my biometrics then I was the impostor. If the card is also used for almost everything (like phones are today) then I am instantly an outcast.
Today's phone apps are a good comparison. If something goes wrong with (say) your ApplePay app people just say "It's not working", it is not a big deal. If you need documents to prove your identity, you can choose from a number of them. It all stays in my/your control.
ID cards should not be given too much agency. At the end of the day if the card and I disagree then it is wrong and must be replaced. I am the living specification for my own identity.
Whereas turn it on its head and it is a very sensible idea. By turn on its head I mean the underlying documents and data are the thing - like the credit card on Apple Pay or the airline boarding pass in Apple Wallet and we each have a single convenient card, or app, that links to all the ID information we need including passport data. Just scan your smartphone at the border when arriving in a new country and that immediately shares your visa status, or number of days in Schengen in last 180.
Government can then access the aggregate anonymised data to help with public policy and planning of services.
The point is that the ONLY task of the card is verification, but a failure of that verification should not lock you out of everything. If the card is the access-key to obtaining a service then any failure locks you out of that service.
If the proposal for the card had been an alternative to having to offer a passport and utility bill then everything would have been fine. Card failure would simply result in you having to use other methods, but at least you would not be denied access to all sorts of systems / benefits.
There was even talk at one point of using this thing as a cash card, having all your medical data on it, etc. Anyone who hacked the system would have everything.
It was the stupidest idea ever, which is probably why they will try again to implement it.
Central bank digital currencies, coming soon…
Those actually sound like they will be done properly, providing an alternative for online transactions that frees everyone from the VISA/MasterCard duopoly.
Let’s just say that the disadvantages considerably outweigh the advantages, for all the reasons of ID cards and more.
You’re replacing a bank that you generally trust with a government you don’t trust, who can un-person you at their will (or by accident).
See the example of the Canadian truckers de-banked by Trudeau during the pandemic, or people having their identity stolen being told that the system is right and they need to go and get new fingerprints.
Things might have changed since I last read anything about this, but I didn't think it was going to be centralised in that way. They were talking about an open system.
Everybody knows that Brexit has doomed the Union, just like it has destroyed the economy. Loads of the Remainers on here said so.
So the poll is clearly wrong.
Yes, and let's not forget the incredible wave of YES supporting young people, about to overwhelm all the sad old dying NO voters. All those YES voting 15 year olds in 2014 will now be able to vote, and all the octogenarian NO voters will now be dead, so the YES vote will have surged past the oh
Relying on demographic shifts to do your work for you is so often The God That Fails.
Twenty one years after the book was published, we’re still waiting for the Emerging Democratic Majority to emerge in the US.
Great to hear what you think Scotland should do. I‘m sure Scotland will think on after hearing this.
Shut up about Independence and spend a half century or so proving you can look after yourselves with all your devolved powers ... not tempted by that?
I'm not trying to persuade a haggis-smeared scotch ideologue like @Theuniondivvie that this is good. His whole life is bound up with this cause
I am describing the realpolitik of the situation
Ah well Sindy is one of those topics where I've long sussed you out, isn't it. There's no sense or logic to your position, it's a visceral dislike of uppity Scots (ie those who don't recognize the 'G' in 'GB') combined with a hefty dose of trolling.
Great to hear what you think Scotland should do. I‘m sure Scotland will think on after hearing this.
Well, given that Holyrood needs the express permission of the British people, in the British parliament at Westminster, if Holyrood ever wants another indyref, then yes you should indeed care what British people outside Scotland think. We hold the keys to the indy-door. The fact you won't acknowledge this says rather a lot
Who’s not acknowledging it? I’m quite happy to state that the same people who inflicted a 13 year shitberg of Toryism and Brexit on Scotland will keep electing pols who will obstruct a second Indy ref whatever the circumstances because they’re scared they’d lose it. The idea that a bunch of reactionary Spectatorites can or should be negotiated with on the issue is for the birds.
So, how are you gonna persuade the British people, via the British parliament, that they should allow Sindyref?
Or are you just gonna sit there in your soiled and festering adult-nappy of incontinent Nat grievance, wailing for someone to do something? Coz that's what you've done so far
And still Hamas has not thought - hmm, maybe we should release those hostages? Maybe this is our fault?
I mean, it depends on who you trust, but some reports are coming through that Israel is not willing to talk to Hamas about releasing the hostages; we know with the older women who were released on medical grounds that Hamas wanted to make sure they were released safely and had to talk to other Middle Eastern countries to safely release them. There are also reports that some hostages have been killed by Israeli bombing campaigns, and families of those taken hostage are protesting the government for not acting in the interests of the hostages.
Hamas could just release the hostages into Gaza without warning - but that would likely be as much as a death sentence as killing them themselves.
Hamas is keeping Israeli hostages on humanitarian grounds.
Amazing. Literally can't make this shit up.
I mean, I wouldn't go that far. On purely cynical political grounds dead hostages are not worth anything.
Again, you seem to have taken the position that Hamas have no political aims which they are trying to achieve via leverage and are instead just demons in human flesh, on the Earth to do evil things for evil purposes. They have motivations, they have goals. You may disagree with all of them, or only some of them, but they have them. They have released hostages - by the account of one of them they fed her and gave her medical care and, when concerned for her health, negotiated her safe release. That suggests they value the hostages in some way, no?
Great to hear what you think Scotland should do. I‘m sure Scotland will think on after hearing this.
Well, given that Holyrood needs the express permission of the British people, in the British parliament at Westminster, if Holyrood ever wants another indyref, then yes you should indeed care what British people outside Scotland think. We hold the keys to the indy-door. The fact you won't acknowledge this says rather a lot
Do you not think that might be part of the problem, especially for people who are ScotNats? Their devolved government is always somewhat precarious because, at the end of the day, what Westminster gives it can take away.
More clarity of purpose at Westminster solves that problem.
NO, YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANOTHER REFERENDUM
There, sorted
Quebec is now further from indy than it has been in many decades, I predict the same will happen to Scotland. Indy will become a yearning aspiration, for many, but not something to actually be done, any time soon, because of all the extreme hassle and pain - so it will forever recede, just out of reach
So you think a clear expression of no Independence referendum in the near future would make Scottish politics... better? When 45% of the Scottish people not only want a referendum, but want independence?
1. The most words in a monarch's speech since 2005. 2. The fewest Bills in a monarch's speech since 2014.
Many words. Minimal action.
1. By how many? 2. By how many?
I know you wont reply as its not your style, but 1 and 2 are important to the point. If it was double the length and half the bills then yes, if one more word than the previous longest and one bill shorter then not so much.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
Great to hear what you think Scotland should do. I‘m sure Scotland will think on after hearing this.
Well, given that Holyrood needs the express permission of the British people, in the British parliament at Westminster, if Holyrood ever wants another indyref, then yes you should indeed care what British people outside Scotland think. We hold the keys to the indy-door. The fact you won't acknowledge this says rather a lot
Who’s not acknowledging it? I’m quite happy to state that the same people who inflicted a 13 year shitberg of Toryism and Brexit on Scotland will keep electing pols who will obstruct a second Indy ref whatever the circumstances because they’re scared they’d lose it. The idea that a bunch of reactionary Spectatorites can or should be negotiated with on the issue is for the birds.
So, how are you gonna persuade the British people, via the British parliament, that they should allow Sindyref?
Or are you just gonna sit there in your soiled and festering adult-nappy of incontinent Nat grievance, wailing for someone to do something? Coz that's what you've done so far
Big ‘I AM relevant to this situation even if I’m not’ foot stamping energy.
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
The Gaza Health Ministry use individual IDs provided to Gazans by the Israeli state, and is also typically the source used by many Israeli news channels (or at least the numbers used by many Israeli news match those numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry).
A few days ago I asked for a better source, with evidence of why it would be better than the GHM, and all I got was "GHM is Hamas, therefore cannot trust, therefore shrug"
Are you seriously still stuck on this?
1) You, personally, do not need to have accurate numbers. It makes absolutely no difference to you, and there is not some magic number of deaths which would push Israel from being in the right to being in the wrong.
2) Hamas' official number is probably ballpark accurate for deaths of Gazans due to the conflict since October 7. The issues with it are a) you have no idea how many of those deaths were caused directly by Hamas (eg: misfiring rockets, deliberate attacks on fleeing human shields who'd been ordered to remain in place instead of following evacuation orders, random murder of gay people just because they can), and b) it does not break down between combatants - ie, legitimate military targets - and innocent civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) All the deaths are on Hamas anyway, since they started this war and continue to deliberately place their own people in harm's way by use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes. This is, in case it needs to be repeated, a war crime.
I mean, I responded to someone posting about the question "Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?". The answer, in my mind, is "it's the best we have" and I therefore feel if anyone thinks otherwise, it is incumbent on them to say what source is better.
The death toll discussed regarding Hamas' attack on Israel doesn't distinguish between "legitimate military targets" and civilians; indeed very little coverage was given to the attacks on "legitimate military targets" near the border fence. Should I remove ~350 from the Israeli Oct 7th death count based on this?
On the last point we just fundamentally disagree - even if you take the position that Hamas is only motivated by pure evil and hatred, Israel had other options as a response that did not include dropping more bombs on Gaza in a week than the US dropped on Afghanistan in a year. How many dead Hamas soldiers make it okay to kill 4,000 children? I think Hamas' targeting of civilians is morally abhorrent, and it is also morally abhorrent when Israel does it too. Why do you feel the need to absolve the state of Israel for what it is doing, for what the UN is calling a potential genocide?
The breakdown of the Israeli death toll on October 7 between military and civilian targets has been widely reported: current tally is around 300 soldiers killed, plus I think a small number of police. Over a thousand civilians dead, in other words. Again, I can see no universe in which the exact numbers on either side should matter to you, and it is obvious in any case that it is not "okay to kill 4,000 children" based on another number being above or below a given threshold.
On the last point: provide evidence that Israel is "targeting civilians". The IDF is the most heavily scrutinised military in the world, and in four weeks of a heavy bombing campaign, the closest anyone's come to accusing them of misconduct turned out to be caused by the other side, who then exaggerated the effects.
1. The most words in a monarch's speech since 2005. 2. The fewest Bills in a monarch's speech since 2014.
Many words. Minimal action.
Given that government legislation tends to do nothing more than make peoples lives more complicated and miserable, this lack of legislation is surely a good thing?
And still Hamas has not thought - hmm, maybe we should release those hostages? Maybe this is our fault?
I mean, it depends on who you trust, but some reports are coming through that Israel is not willing to talk to Hamas about releasing the hostages; we know with the older women who were released on medical grounds that Hamas wanted to make sure they were released safely and had to talk to other Middle Eastern countries to safely release them. There are also reports that some hostages have been killed by Israeli bombing campaigns, and families of those taken hostage are protesting the government for not acting in the interests of the hostages.
Hamas could just release the hostages into Gaza without warning - but that would likely be as much as a death sentence as killing them themselves.
Hamas is keeping Israeli hostages on humanitarian grounds.
Amazing. Literally can't make this shit up.
I mean, I wouldn't go that far. On purely cynical political grounds dead hostages are not worth anything.
Again, you seem to have taken the position that Hamas have no political aims which they are trying to achieve via leverage and are instead just demons in human flesh, on the Earth to do evil things for evil purposes. They have motivations, they have goals. You may disagree with all of them, or only some of them, but they have them. They have released hostages - by the account of one of them they fed her and gave her medical care and, when concerned for her health, negotiated her safe release. That suggests they value the hostages in some way, no?
No, it indicates they saw propaganda value in releasing them.
Hamas's political aims are not a secret: they are enshrined in its charter, which you can easily find online. In summary, their main short term goal is "kill as many Jews as possible", and this can only be overwritten by its main long term goal, which is "kill enough Jews to make the rest of them go away as well".
Until you get that idea into your head, you have no hope of understanding the current conflict.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. Increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
The idea that success breeds success in independence movements, and that institutions are more important than identity, is an interesting one and certainly seems to be borne out by history. It's one of fun (Tatar) Tweeter Kamil Galeev's regular points when speculating on post-Putin Russia.
Take the former Soviet Union / Russian empire: those republics that retained semi autonomy and governance structures during the Soviet period then generally went on to independence afterwards. Those that had been almost entirely absorbed into the centralising power, including culturally very distinct places like Dagestan or Tatarstan, didn't stand a chance.
The US states think autonomously and regularly fight against federal power because they already have significant autonomy. Catalonia and Scotland have become closer not further away from independence since devolution. Whereas Corsica and Brittany which historically should be every bit as separatist, are not. And I'd say Scotland is closer to independence than Wales precisely because it has more autonomous institutions and governance, and a shorter history of union, not because the Scots are more different from the rest of Britain than the Welsh are.
Note to German government, you might want to throw everything at letting the Ukranians win the war, and not antagonise the Saudis by refusing to export Typhoons at the same time.
A Saudi order doesn't help the Germans much as Saudi jets come off the British FAL. The German FAL will be busy with the 38 'Quadriga' jets for the GAF until 2027 so they don't have the same political hemorrhoid that's on the verge of bursting like the British do with the imminent end of Eurofighter production at Wharton. The UK government don't want to be forced into a follow on Typhoon order, as they surely would be if the alternative were shuttering Wharton, as that will fuck up Tempest which is already running on the whiff of an oily rag when it comes to finances.
Airbus D&S would get to make 48 x centre fuselage sections in Germany for whatever that is worth.
Yes, the planes come out of the UK, but by not antagonising the Saudis, you increase the chance that he bows to Western pressure to start pumping more of the black stuff, instead of keeping the price up and letting the Russians fund their war.
Biden sure as hell wants to see ‘gas prices’ come down in election year, and so will Sunak.
Germany banned arms sales (with exceptions) to Saudi Arabia in 2018 because of Saudi involvement in the war in Yemen. A complete ban followed the murder of Kashoggi. Last year the ban was relaxed, and this year it was relaxed further - no doubt both times at least partly hoping Saudi Arabia would be helpful with oil production. Instead it looks like KSA is choosing to cooperate with Putin on oil production cuts.
In the medium term will it prove wise to sell as much advanced weaponry as possible to a potentially hostile country?
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
Very good point.
Its interesting how indy is slowly dying as a practical political issue in Catalonia. Spanish govt simply stood firm and wouldnt allow it. Looked to be an unsustainable position at the time but slowly, quietly, has become the apparently unshakeable status quo. Scotland and Catalonia not the same (obvs) but there is nothing inevitable about any of this.
1. The most words in a monarch's speech since 2005. 2. The fewest Bills in a monarch's speech since 2014.
Many words. Minimal action.
1. By how many? 2. By how many?
I know you wont reply as its not your style, but 1 and 2 are important to the point. If it was double the length and half the bills then yes, if one more word than the previous longest and one bill shorter then not so much.
1. The most words in a monarch's speech since 2005. 2. The fewest Bills in a monarch's speech since 2014.
Many words. Minimal action.
Given that government legislation tends to do nothing more than make peoples lives more complicated and miserable, this lack of legislation is surely a good thing?
There are times when that's true. There are also times - now, for example - when the nation's institutions are in need of determined reform.
Though I'd agree that the less the current lot do, the better. Also, the sooner they're gone, ditto.
Note to German government, you might want to throw everything at letting the Ukranians win the war, and not antagonise the Saudis by refusing to export Typhoons at the same time.
A Saudi order doesn't help the Germans much as Saudi jets come off the British FAL. The German FAL will be busy with the 38 'Quadriga' jets for the GAF until 2027 so they don't have the same political hemorrhoid that's on the verge of bursting like the British do with the imminent end of Eurofighter production at Wharton. The UK government don't want to be forced into a follow on Typhoon order, as they surely would be if the alternative were shuttering Wharton, as that will fuck up Tempest which is already running on the whiff of an oily rag when it comes to finances.
Airbus D&S would get to make 48 x centre fuselage sections in Germany for whatever that is worth.
Yes, the planes come out of the UK, but by not antagonising the Saudis, you increase the chance that he bows to Western pressure to start pumping more of the black stuff, instead of keeping the price up and letting the Russians fund their war.
Biden sure as hell wants to see ‘gas prices’ come down in election year, and so will Sunak.
Germany banned arms sales (with exceptions) to Saudi Arabia in 2018 because of Saudi involvement in the war in Yemen. A complete ban followed the murder of Kashoggi. Last year the ban was relaxed, and this year it was relaxed further - no doubt both times at least partly hoping Saudi Arabia would be helpful with oil production. Instead it looks like KSA is choosing to cooperate with Putin on oil production cuts.
In the medium term will it prove wise to sell as much advanced weaponry as possible to a potentially hostile country?
I don't think that is much of a consideration. The RSAF (much like the RAF) will only be able to keep their Typhoons airworthy for about 15 minutes without contractor support. The Eurofighter consortium can turn that support off when directed by the national governments.
Everybody knows that Brexit has doomed the Union, just like it has destroyed the economy. Loads of the Remainers on here said so.
So the poll is clearly wrong.
Yes, and let's not forget the incredible wave of YES supporting young people, about to overwhelm all the sad old dying NO voters. All those YES voting 15 year olds in 2014 will now be able to vote, and all the octogenarian NO voters will now be dead, so the YES vote will have surged past the oh
Relying on demographic shifts to do your work for you is so often The God That Fails.
Twenty one years after the book was published, we’re still waiting for the Emerging Democratic Majority to emerge in the US.
People get more conservative as they grow older. Quite why this obvious fact passes by the commentariat is bewildering.
Comments
https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2023/1107/1415123-kings-speech-ni/
Everyone have Sunak a lot of credit for the Windsor Framework at the time, but it has failed to fix the political impasse. What now?
What slightly disappointed me about him is that he never called the disallowed Liverpool goal out as the shocker it was - I think for the VAR discourse to be less toxic, and for standards to improve, those who profit from the errors should acknowledge them. As it is, they say “the refs have got a difficult job” when they get the decision, but rant when they get legged over
Newcastle have had two outrageous penalties awarded recently, but Eddie Howe never says they were lucky, none of them do - it’s as if they think by doing so they might get fewer decisions in future. The only one I can think of who called out a decision they got in their favour was Erling Haaland, for Nathan Ake’s goal for City vs Fulham
If the proposal for the card had been an alternative to having to offer a passport and utility bill then everything would have been fine. Card failure would simply result in you having to use other methods, but at least you would not be denied access to all sorts of systems / benefits.
There was even talk at one point of using this thing as a cash card, having all your medical data on it, etc. Anyone who hacked the system would have everything.
It was the stupidest idea ever, which is probably why they will try again to implement it.
An interesting perspective from Justine Greening, with which I feel a great deal of sympathy.
There is also a practical reason why organisations are against banning the breed and the DDA which it is like whack-a-mole. You ban one breed, another comes up and then there is another outcry. It doesn't deal with the problem at source. If you want a parallel with which you can no doubt empathise, it is like trying to add new drugs to the prohibited list - all that happens is another one is introduced which is legal because it is not prescribed but which could be just, or more, dangerous.
Hard to think of four words that better sum this government up than "Many words. Minimal action."
@TomLarkinSky
👑 That King's Speech contained:
1. The most words in a monarch's speech since 2005.
2. The fewest Bills in a monarch's speech since 2014.
Many words. Minimal action.
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Death_toll
The solution to crime is both prevention in its widest sense (everything from home security to drugs counselling to controlling access to weapons), and effective policing. Once you're at the sentencing stage you've already failed.
2. By how many?
I know you wont reply as its not your style, but 1 and 2 are important to the point. If it was double the length and half the bills then yes, if one more word than the previous longest and one bill shorter then not so much.
Personally I would ALSO make it compulsory for all large dogs to be muzzled in public, then there is no dispute on "breed", just basic size, 30kg say
And yes no doubt another dubious hybrid will emerge in time, and then we ban that too, eventually we can just get AI to sort it all out, with autonomous dog-killer drones floating down the streets, zapping any dodgy hound with a trillion-volt cano-cidal laser-slasher, so the dogs explode
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/66859121
The prisons are full to bursting.
It's more wishful thinking from a desperate Sunak.
And citing the Hamas figures in the US State Department is not the same as accepting that they are correct.
So it'll be late and cost too much.
Powerful stuff and a shed load of problems.
UN says clearly sourced? WTF? Yes, sourced from Hamas.
A few days ago I asked for a better source, with evidence of why it would be better than the GHM, and all I got was "GHM is Hamas, therefore cannot trust, therefore shrug"
New Scottish Independence poll, YouGov for Scoop 20 - 25 Oct (changes vs Scoop 9 - 13 Jun):
No ~ 49% (nc)
Yes ~ 40% (+1)
Don't Know ~ 11% (nc)
Excluding Don't Knows (/ vs 2014):
No ~ 55% (-1 / nc)
Yes ~ 45% (+1 / nc)
55/45 NO/YES. It essentially has not budged in a decade: what a pointless waste of everyone's time. Scotland needs to move on now
https://x.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1721630071373328763?s=20
You’re replacing a bank that you generally trust with a government you don’t trust, who can un-person you at their will (or by accident).
See the example of the Canadian truckers de-banked by Trudeau during the pandemic, or people having their identity stolen being told that the system is right and they need to go and get new fingerprints.
Thanks also to Viewcode and LostPassword for making the same point.
But if there are 'tons of duplicates and mistakes' how do people get their pensions paid once they get to State Retirement Age?
Israel have killed 10,000 people in 30 days.
* Lost Lives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Lives
Okay - how? When you have an almost even split on something as fundamental as independence, what is the way forward? Will Westminster allow for more devolved powers? Will Westminster reduce devolved powers, or get rid of them entirely (as some Conservatives threaten)?
If Scotland keeps voting for a Nationalist majority in Holyrood, but not for independence - they must want something the parties are promising.
I was just thinking about washing up.
Lexuses (Lexi?) are seen as staid, but likely not driven by idiots.
Just came back from town where there was a car (ironically a Lexus) and a van parked across a dropped kerb for pedestrian access to the market place, right next to an empty row of parking spaces.
You can read "K" at one end, and "LEAR" at the other end.
BMW further up the street parked precisely across a house driveway, between 2 rows of empty (free) parking spaces.
We spent months getting Mrs P's State Pension sorted out because for 10 years she'd worked for a GP practice where the practice manager had submitted her NI contribution with two characters transposed in her NI number, so she appeared to have a 10 year gap in contributions. I thought NI numbers had a check digit but if so HMRC weren;t checking it.
Hamas could just release the hostages into Gaza without warning - but that would likely be as much as a death sentence as killing them themselves.
Seems like a very slow game of whackamole.
Off to catch up on Rishi's content-free speech.
Moreover, this is the only sensible, practical route TO independence. For ten years the SNP have tried the whining, bleating, mewling, threatening and blaming-everything-on-London technique. For a long time it worked, electorally if not constitutionally, but now it is failing on both counts, the SNP are plunging in the polls, the London govt doesn't give a fuck about Sindyref2, and there is nothing the Nats can do
The only choice now is stop moaning, go back to basics, get re-elected as the Scottish government, then make a success of it so Scotland becomes more prosperous so the Scottish people begin to think, once again, "Yes, this could work, we can be independent"
Do that, and let a generation pass, and Scottish indy will once again be a realistic prospect. But it requires the Nats to show a great deal of maturity, not something they have recently evinced
So the poll is clearly wrong.
Such a screw up by the media, that hospital incident. I watched the rolling news live that evening and I went to bed convinced the Israelis had bombed the hospital and killed 500 people. The next day it all unravelled and the truth was something rather different as regards culprit and scale.
Listen to Price of Football podcast for regular updates on what and why it is a good idea.
1) You, personally, do not need to have accurate numbers. It makes absolutely no difference to you, and there is not some magic number of deaths which would push Israel from being in the right to being in the wrong.
2) Hamas' official number is probably ballpark accurate for deaths of Gazans due to the conflict since October 7. The issues with it are a) you have no idea how many of those deaths were caused directly by Hamas (eg: misfiring rockets, deliberate attacks on fleeing human shields who'd been ordered to remain in place instead of following evacuation orders, random murder of gay people just because they can), and b) it does not break down between combatants - ie, legitimate military targets - and innocent civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) All the deaths are on Hamas anyway, since they started this war and continue to deliberately place their own people in harm's way by use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes. This is, in case it needs to be repeated, a war crime.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64536218
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-sustainable-future-reforming-club-football-governance
The highlights are measures to stop clubs leaving the existing structure (such as Euro Super League), and greater controls on suitability of shareholders (such as Abramovich, who ended up sanctioned and forced to sell Chelsea).
Amazing. Literally can't make this shit up.
Metaphorically of course.
NO, YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANOTHER REFERENDUM
There, sorted
Quebec is now further from indy than it has been in many decades, I predict the same will happen to Scotland. Indy will become a yearning aspiration, for many, but not something to actually be done, any time soon, because of all the extreme hassle and pain - so it will forever recede, just out of reach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcC5qFq9Uuw
I am describing the realpolitik of the situation
The death toll discussed regarding Hamas' attack on Israel doesn't distinguish between "legitimate military targets" and civilians; indeed very little coverage was given to the attacks on "legitimate military targets" near the border fence. Should I remove ~350 from the Israeli Oct 7th death count based on this?
On the last point we just fundamentally disagree - even if you take the position that Hamas is only motivated by pure evil and hatred, Israel had other options as a response that did not include dropping more bombs on Gaza in a week than the US dropped on Afghanistan in a year. How many dead Hamas soldiers make it okay to kill 4,000 children? I think Hamas' targeting of civilians is morally abhorrent, and it is also morally abhorrent when Israel does it too. Why do you feel the need to absolve the state of Israel for what it is doing, for what the UN is calling a potential genocide?
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/gaza-is-running-out-of-time-un-experts-warn-demanding-a-ceasefire-to-prevent-genocide/
The Germans have some excellent cars in their ranges (M4 CSL, RS5, GT63) but also quite a lot of utter dross with an amazing amount of cheap materials and engineering shortcuts.
Twenty one years after the book was published, we’re still waiting for the Emerging Democratic Majority to emerge in the US.
Or are you just gonna sit there in your soiled and festering adult-nappy of incontinent Nat grievance, wailing for someone to do something? Coz that's what you've done so far
Again, you seem to have taken the position that Hamas have no political aims which they are trying to achieve via leverage and are instead just demons in human flesh, on the Earth to do evil things for evil purposes. They have motivations, they have goals. You may disagree with all of them, or only some of them, but they have them. They have released hostages - by the account of one of them they fed her and gave her medical care and, when concerned for her health, negotiated her safe release. That suggests they value the hostages in some way, no?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/parliament-labour-party-prince-of-wales-b2443107.html
And here.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/longest-monarch-speech-state-opening-124332487.html
Afghanistan 1.13
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.220565328
On the last point: provide evidence that Israel is "targeting civilians". The IDF is the most heavily scrutinised military in the world, and in four weeks of a heavy bombing campaign, the closest anyone's come to accusing them of misconduct turned out to be caused by the other side, who then exaggerated the effects.
Hamas's political aims are not a secret: they are enshrined in its charter, which you can easily find online. In summary, their main short term goal is "kill as many Jews as possible", and this can only be overwritten by its main long term goal, which is "kill enough Jews to make the rest of them go away as well".
Until you get that idea into your head, you have no hope of understanding the current conflict.
Take the former Soviet Union / Russian empire: those republics that retained semi autonomy and governance structures during the Soviet period then generally went on to independence afterwards. Those that had been almost entirely absorbed into the centralising power, including culturally very distinct places like Dagestan or Tatarstan, didn't stand a chance.
The US states think autonomously and regularly fight against federal power because they already have significant autonomy. Catalonia and Scotland have become closer not further away from independence since devolution. Whereas Corsica and Brittany which historically should be every bit as separatist, are not. And I'd say Scotland is closer to independence than Wales precisely because it has more autonomous institutions and governance, and a shorter history of union, not because the Scots are more different from the rest of Britain than the Welsh are.
In the medium term will it prove wise to sell as much advanced weaponry as possible to a potentially hostile country?
Its interesting how indy is slowly dying as a practical political issue in Catalonia. Spanish govt simply stood firm and wouldnt allow it. Looked to be an unsustainable position at the time but slowly, quietly, has become the apparently unshakeable status quo. Scotland and Catalonia not the same (obvs) but there is nothing inevitable about any of this.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02283/SN02283.pdf
But the combination of verbosity, and paucity of substance, is evidently an outlier, even if not extraordinarily so.
There are also times - now, for example - when the nation's institutions are in need of determined reform.
Though I'd agree that the less the current lot do, the better.
Also, the sooner they're gone, ditto.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/07/south-africa-minister-sindisiwe-chikunga-robbed