Seriously, if no one does significant time for this, then all faith in Justice in this country will be lost.
You assume most people currently have faith in our justice system. I don't speak for anyone but me but I lost all faith a couple of decades ago when it became obvious there is a rule for the rich/famous and one for the plebs
The current DPP really needs to have a couple of very senior people appearing from custody in relation to this now. Its starting to look like they gave it to Police Scotland to investigate.
Prediction no one senior will get prosecuted, they may find a junior or two to scapegoat
Remember - the *judge* in the Kids Company case said that it would be unfair to hold the legally liable trustees legally liable for their voluntarily assumed legal liabilities.
The CPS said, when Blair & Co. got caught selling peerages, that it would be unfair to prosecute.
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*will not include lessons. Will not include learning. Will not include Will. Will not include “Be”. Will not include bees.
I don't think that is true.
Kds Company was a CIO (that is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation).so the Trustees were effectively non-executive directors and covered by limited liability in the same way as other company's.
The court case was over whether the Trustees were reckless with their supervision of the finances and were found not to be. There were no allegations of criminality, and at worst they could be barred from other directorships for a time.
The judge said that the Trustees shouldn’t be held to account for not actually doing anything. I mean, ten minutes with the actual books would have revealed chaos. They couldn’t be arsed.
If you are Trustee of a charity you have actual obligations. Moral and legal. They pissed on that.
They wanted to put “Charity Trustee” on their CV, meet the Great & Good and drink champagne at the right events.
Bit like the celebrity scum selling crypto - “We aren’t responsible for selling our reputations on this stuff!”
I look forward you posting - and celebrating - the upcoming record performance of Starmer, when he registers more Labour votes in England than Corbyn achieved in 2017.
Why nothing will change
What POLICY are you looking forward to as a positive change under SKS
Not being these Tories is an absolute killer of a policy.
It's literally not.
All I see is worse times for benefit claimants, more austerity.
Your blind faith things will improve is pretty pathetic if you can't give a single example.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Sadiq Khan (LAB): 44% (+1) Susan Hall (CON): 26% (-5) Zoe Garbett (GRN): 7% (-2) Rob Blackie (LDM): 7% (-9) Howard Cox (REF): 5% (+4) Brian Rose (LRP): 3% (NEW) Natalie Campbell (IND): 3% (NEW)
Via @Survation , On 21-26 March, Changes w/ July 2023
Perhaps if the Tories chose a more useless candidate, they could make Rishi's current polling look decent.
Natalie Campbell applied to be the Conservative candidate but was unsuccessful and obviously any membership of the party would have ceased. Her manifesto reads quite well and certainly better than anything the Conservative candidate has offered.
Rose stood last time and shrewd punters made a lot of money laying his candidature as the bookies got his odds a bit wrong.
None of this makes much difference - Khan is on course for a clear and convincing win.
Most of the fringe candidates are to the right: pro-business, anti-ULEZ, anti-woke, anti-lockdown. Some are more sensible (Campbell), some more nutty (Rose, Michli). But collectively they're going to take more votes from Hall than from Khan. Gallagher for the SDP is anti-woke, but pro-spending on the needy, so she might take a few votes from both sides.
The only other fringe candidates are Count Binface, and Femy Amin standing for the Animal Welfare Party, who might take a few votes from Garbett. In the Assembly elections, there are more threats to Labour from the Socialist Party of Great Britain, the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition and Rejoin EU.
Fringe candidates took a total of 12.5% of the mayoral vote last time around, so they do matter... except they don't because Khan's margin over Hall is going to be humongous.
I look forward you posting - and celebrating - the upcoming record performance of Starmer, when he registers more Labour votes in England than Corbyn achieved in 2017.
Why nothing will change
What POLICY are you looking forward to as a positive change under SKS
Why would I want policies? All governments do is fuck things up. I am looking for masterly inaction.
Do nothing, do it as slowly as possible, and let the country sort itself out. There is an argument for this: people eventually sort problems out without government help.
That was THE basic politico-governmental principle of Stanley Baldwin during is days as CUP Leader and UK Prime Minister. He believed - and said as much - that most so-called crises will eventually take care of themselves . . . PROVIDED their is sufficient degree of delay and inaction.
Helped make him quite popular during his time in front-line politics.
HOWEVER, his policy of masterly inactivity proved LESS effective, and eventually WAY less popular, when applied to military aircraft production.
Despite (or because?) of his assurance (?) that, "I think it is well also for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through." (source SB's wiki-bio)
Actually, rearmament started in 1932 and by about 1935 was hitting limits on what to spend money on.
This is because military production capability isn’t just matter of diverting GDP. U.K. rearmament was predicated on building factories first, weapons later.
As it was, we ended up buying, for example, lots of Fairey Battles. Which were known to be pretty useless - the idea was that they could be built by existing factories, training the workers. Because they were single engined, they were cheap - allowing rapid forming of squadrons. And their crews - pilot, navigator and gunner - would form the nucleus of the crews for the actual bombers planned for the War - the B1/39 designs, for example. Which made Lancasters look small and underarmed.
Unfortunately, Hitler started the war much earlier than he had planned. The original schedule was for mid 1942.
Timing is everything. Italy re-armed too soon and was handicapped by obsolete equipment. War material is very prone to obsolescence and expensive to update.
Indeed that's a large part of Putins motivation for his 2022 invasion of Ukraine. His equipment was rapidly becoming obsolete, and too expensive to upgrade.
I look forward you posting - and celebrating - the upcoming record performance of Starmer, when he registers more Labour votes in England than Corbyn achieved in 2017.
Why nothing will change
What POLICY are you looking forward to as a positive change under SKS
Well planning reform, which would get a lot of infrastructure built including lots of new telecoms masts!
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
I wouldn't put butter on a scone, but I'd certainly use butter in the recipe to bake the scone.
I will bet £50 that the back door system was used to deliberately frame post masters.
Any takers?
I would not be surprised to find that money was taken and put in the pockets of those with back door access. The thefts were from the sub-postmasters not by them.
At the time of writing the situation with Post Office management is this -
1. The Chair has been sacked. No replacement has been appointed. 2. The Deputy CEO is leaving. 3. The CFO is on extended gardening leave. 4. The CEO is under investigation. 5. The General Counsel has been reprimanded by the SRA. 6. Most of the HR department appear to have left.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
I wouldn't put butter on a scone, but I'd certainly use butter in the recipe to bake the scone.
I would use butter in the recipe AND put butter on the scone (what else does one put under the jam and clotted cream??).
I look forward you posting - and celebrating - the upcoming record performance of Starmer, when he registers more Labour votes in England than Corbyn achieved in 2017.
Why nothing will change
What POLICY are you looking forward to as a positive change under SKS
Well planning reform, which would get a lot of infrastructure built including lots of new telecoms masts!
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
I wouldn't put butter on a scone, but I'd certainly use butter in the recipe to bake the scone.
Well yes to make the scones I assumed he meant spread on them as I would put nothing past the national trust and yes making scones with margarine would be like using sand to make porridge instead of oats
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
I wouldn't put butter on a scone, but I'd certainly use butter in the recipe to bake the scone.
I would use butter in the recipe AND put butter on the scone (what else does one put under the jam and clotted cream??).
BREAKING: JK Rowling's comments about new hate crime laws "are not assessed to be criminal", police have said, as they confirmed no further action would be taken
Wasn't this already known up front? Specifically, that the exposition of gender critical thought was not within the remit of the thing.
Yes. There was never any possibility of her comments being deemed to be potentially criminal.
They would never fight her in court, they will save it for their secret register where the plebs don't even know they have been marked down for some fkucwitted moron's opinion. Plod will take easy option. It is all virtue signalling by the clowns running the SNP and ruining the country, a bigger bunch of rubbish you would struggle to find.
Jo Rowling knows they’ll never go after her, as she has basically unlimited financial resources and a worldwide media profile.
What I think she’s doing, is to get police and prosecutors to quickly define where they are drawing the line, such that others can use the same defences in future. She’ll probably speak out, and possibly even dip into her pocket for a few lawyers, if she sees that initial standard being eroded over time.
Either that of the hype over the law was substantially bunkum all along, and never intended to inhibit opinions like hers.
The comments from many in the Scottish Government on the matter appear somewhat different. I shall defer to the excellent Mrs @Cyclefree and yesterday’s header on the subject.
It’s also worth noting that this discussion has crossed the Pond - here’s an epic five-hour podcast with Joe Rogan and four comedian friends last week, that opened with discussions about this new law. https://youtube.com/watch?v=cV71YMAwIXY It’s fair to say that not many American comics will turn up in Edinburgh this year, if they feel that their speech might be policed by the actual Scottish police. That’s a direct hit to the Scottish economy, for as long as it takes for the actual implications of this law to become known by case law and appellate courts.
Comedians who want to appear on Rogan's show are not representative of all US comedians. Rogan has shared COVID-19 conspiracy theories (and HIV conspiracy theories). He's shared anti-vax views. He's shared antisemitic tropes (e.g. saying the "idea that Jewish people are not into money is ridiculous"). He's a polarising guy with some views that are, at best, eccentric, or at worst dangerous.
In other words, he's a loon. Why on earth are you listening to him? He spreads nonsense about Ukraine too, and supports Trump's position on it.
Just because someone is a loon, and a conspiracist theorist( and I agree Rogan is) does not however mean he is automatically wrong about everything. Cf Griffin ( a total racist and fascist) but he was correct about the grooming gangs.
Dismissing what people say because they also say things that we violently disgree with or think are looney is easy. I am sure people do it with me because I often say things that make people uncomfortable. However does not mean that on somethings maybe they have a point.
I'm sure there are things that Rogan is right about. I'm also sure that I'm not going to waste my life sifting through Rogan's nonsense to find these occasional gems. I'm equally sure that a Rogan podcast is not representative of US comedians' attitude towards Scotland in general.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
I wouldn't put butter on a scone, but I'd certainly use butter in the recipe to bake the scone.
I would use butter in the recipe AND put butter on the scone (what else does one put under the jam and clotted cream??).
I put a scone under it
There are very few things in life that can't be made better using a copious amount of butter.
I know this will upset you, but I've never like Everton. It's the mints, you see. They are ultimately incredibly disappointing, and that is something I will forget but can never forgive.
Violently disagree.
I love those mints, favourite old school sweet, the little chew in the centre makes it, and am better disposed to Everton the team as a result.
Obviously, the fact they are not Liverpool helps greatly as well
But, Mrs Rata demands that Ipswich are not to be trusted, so I'm sure we might find some point of agreement in that.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
Seriously, if no one does significant time for this, then all faith in Justice in this country will be lost.
You assume most people currently have faith in our justice system. I don't speak for anyone but me but I lost all faith a couple of decades ago when it became obvious there is a rule for the rich/famous and one for the plebs
I am sure there is some truth in this, but I think the money part is overplayed. Arguably some things are wrong - use of expensiveness to suppress stuff, for instance. Making it too costly to go after wrongdoing. We will see. Someone has lied and lied and lied. With real world consequence.
I thought people would be outraged about the killing of an innocent of the killing of an innocent brazilian electrician.... Result Dick got a promotion the public did nothing
I thought people would be outraged over the killing of a newspaper vendor after the police were shown to be lying through their teeth (Tomlinson)
Result Kier said no charges to be brought the british public did nothing.
You really believe they are going to get incensed about some sub postmasters?
Yes. It’s a criminal conspiracy that’s unjustly imprisoned probably hundreds of people. And has been knowingly and persistently covered up for many years.
There’s no brushing it under the carpet. And no dismissing it as a moment’s misjudgment.
There’s a straightforward choice to be made - by this government, or the next.
BREAKING: JK Rowling's comments about new hate crime laws "are not assessed to be criminal", police have said, as they confirmed no further action would be taken
Wasn't this already known up front? Specifically, that the exposition of gender critical thought was not within the remit of the thing.
Yes. There was never any possibility of her comments being deemed to be potentially criminal.
They would never fight her in court, they will save it for their secret register where the plebs don't even know they have been marked down for some fkucwitted moron's opinion. Plod will take easy option. It is all virtue signalling by the clowns running the SNP and ruining the country, a bigger bunch of rubbish you would struggle to find.
Jo Rowling knows they’ll never go after her, as she has basically unlimited financial resources and a worldwide media profile.
What I think she’s doing, is to get police and prosecutors to quickly define where they are drawing the line, such that others can use the same defences in future. She’ll probably speak out, and possibly even dip into her pocket for a few lawyers, if she sees that initial standard being eroded over time.
Either that of the hype over the law was substantially bunkum all along, and never intended to inhibit opinions like hers.
The comments from many in the Scottish Government on the matter appear somewhat different. I shall defer to the excellent Mrs @Cyclefree and yesterday’s header on the subject.
It’s also worth noting that this discussion has crossed the Pond - here’s an epic five-hour podcast with Joe Rogan and four comedian friends last week, that opened with discussions about this new law. https://youtube.com/watch?v=cV71YMAwIXY It’s fair to say that not many American comics will turn up in Edinburgh this year, if they feel that their speech might be policed by the actual Scottish police. That’s a direct hit to the Scottish economy, for as long as it takes for the actual implications of this law to become known by case law and appellate courts.
Comedians who want to appear on Rogan's show are not representative of all US comedians. Rogan has shared COVID-19 conspiracy theories (and HIV conspiracy theories). He's shared anti-vax views. He's shared antisemitic tropes (e.g. saying the "idea that Jewish people are not into money is ridiculous"). He's a polarising guy with some views that are, at best, eccentric, or at worst dangerous.
In other words, he's a loon. Why on earth are you listening to him? He spreads nonsense about Ukraine too, and supports Trump's position on it.
Just because someone is a loon, and a conspiracist theorist( and I agree Rogan is) does not however mean he is automatically wrong about everything. Cf Griffin ( a total racist and fascist) but he was correct about the grooming gangs.
Dismissing what people say because they also say things that we violently disgree with or think are looney is easy. I am sure people do it with me because I often say things that make people uncomfortable. However does not mean that on somethings maybe they have a point.
I'm sure there are things that Rogan is right about. I'm also sure that I'm not going to waste my life sifting through Rogan's nonsense to find these occasional gems. I'm equally sure that a Rogan podcast is not representative of US comedians' attitude towards Scotland in general.
I did not suggest you sift through it, I merely suggested your attitude that it must be crap because he said it was the wrong way to look at it. If you hear what he says and consider it in its own right rather than say he is wrong on other stuff is all I suggested. Its very easy to not listen to what others say because a lot of their opinions oppose are own, doesn't make them always wrong. Heck I am responding to you and listening to what you say when I disagree with about 90% of things you say. Sometimes I might go that bondegzu has a point here and agree with it.
It is a lot more comfortable to only listen to those we can nod along with but that just leads you to the echo chamber
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
I wouldn't put butter on a scone, but I'd certainly use butter in the recipe to bake the scone.
Well yes to make the scones I assumed he meant spread on them as I would put nothing past the national trust and yes making scones with margarine would be like using sand to make porridge instead of oats
Mrs. F’s favourite National Trust scone recipe is their Blueberry & Lemon Scone - made with butter!
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
I wouldn't put butter on a scone, but I'd certainly use butter in the recipe to bake the scone.
I would use butter in the recipe AND put butter on the scone (what else does one put under the jam and clotted cream??).
I put a scone under it
There are very few things in life that can't be made better using a copious amount of butter.
Butter is simply milk fat, and in the case of a scone clotted cream is a superior delivery mechanism for milk fat.
But on tea brack, or a hot cross bun, by all means, deploy the butter.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
I wouldn't put butter on a scone, but I'd certainly use butter in the recipe to bake the scone.
I would use butter in the recipe AND put butter on the scone (what else does one put under the jam and clotted cream??).
I put a scone under it
There are very few things in life that can't be made better using a copious amount of butter.
Scones however are one of them, I am not opposed to butter. Its great on potato's and a lot of things like toast and crumpets....scones with clotted cream and jam don't get enhanced by butter though
I think to date that London Assembly constituency seats have only ever been won by Labour or the Conservatives. The LibDems were only 3.7% behind the Tory in the South West seat last time. Could they win their first ever constituency seat?
Seriously, if no one does significant time for this, then all faith in Justice in this country will be lost.
You assume most people currently have faith in our justice system. I don't speak for anyone but me but I lost all faith a couple of decades ago when it became obvious there is a rule for the rich/famous and one for the plebs
I am sure there is some truth in this, but I think the money part is overplayed. Arguably some things are wrong - use of expensiveness to suppress stuff, for instance. Making it too costly to go after wrongdoing. We will see. Someone has lied and lied and lied. With real world consequence.
I thought people would be outraged about the killing of an innocent of the killing of an innocent brazilian electrician.... Result Dick got a promotion the public did nothing
I thought people would be outraged over the killing of a newspaper vendor after the police were shown to be lying through their teeth (Tomlinson)
Result Kier said no charges to be brought the british public did nothing.
You really believe they are going to get incensed about some sub postmasters?
Yes. It’s a criminal conspiracy that’s unjustly imprisoned probably hundreds of people. And has been knowingly and persistently covered up for many years.
There’s no brushing it under the carpet. And no dismissing it as a moment’s misjudgment.
There’s a straightforward choice to be made - by this government, or the next.
In Rotherham (and similar) cases, rape had become an industry. For many years. This was known about. After the coverup finally fell over, can you count the prosecutions of those in authority, who knew?
You can do it on the toes of one foot. Without taking a sock off.
I rather like it. Many regard synthetic butter alternatives in the way you regard butter. Takes all sorts.
But one of those things is a naturally delicious substance that has been revered in cultures down the ages for sustaining life, and one of those things is a naturally grey hydrocarbon that's a molecule away from being plastic.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
BREAKING: JK Rowling's comments about new hate crime laws "are not assessed to be criminal", police have said, as they confirmed no further action would be taken
Wasn't this already known up front? Specifically, that the exposition of gender critical thought was not within the remit of the thing.
Yes. There was never any possibility of her comments being deemed to be potentially criminal.
They would never fight her in court, they will save it for their secret register where the plebs don't even know they have been marked down for some fkucwitted moron's opinion. Plod will take easy option. It is all virtue signalling by the clowns running the SNP and ruining the country, a bigger bunch of rubbish you would struggle to find.
Jo Rowling knows they’ll never go after her, as she has basically unlimited financial resources and a worldwide media profile.
What I think she’s doing, is to get police and prosecutors to quickly define where they are drawing the line, such that others can use the same defences in future. She’ll probably speak out, and possibly even dip into her pocket for a few lawyers, if she sees that initial standard being eroded over time.
Either that of the hype over the law was substantially bunkum all along, and never intended to inhibit opinions like hers.
The comments from many in the Scottish Government on the matter appear somewhat different. I shall defer to the excellent Mrs @Cyclefree and yesterday’s header on the subject.
It’s also worth noting that this discussion has crossed the Pond - here’s an epic five-hour podcast with Joe Rogan and four comedian friends last week, that opened with discussions about this new law. https://youtube.com/watch?v=cV71YMAwIXY It’s fair to say that not many American comics will turn up in Edinburgh this year, if they feel that their speech might be policed by the actual Scottish police. That’s a direct hit to the Scottish economy, for as long as it takes for the actual implications of this law to become known by case law and appellate courts.
Comedians who want to appear on Rogan's show are not representative of all US comedians. Rogan has shared COVID-19 conspiracy theories (and HIV conspiracy theories). He's shared anti-vax views. He's shared antisemitic tropes (e.g. saying the "idea that Jewish people are not into money is ridiculous"). He's a polarising guy with some views that are, at best, eccentric, or at worst dangerous.
In other words, he's a loon. Why on earth are you listening to him? He spreads nonsense about Ukraine too, and supports Trump's position on it.
Just because someone is a loon, and a conspiracist theorist( and I agree Rogan is) does not however mean he is automatically wrong about everything. Cf Griffin ( a total racist and fascist) but he was correct about the grooming gangs.
Dismissing what people say because they also say things that we violently disgree with or think are looney is easy. I am sure people do it with me because I often say things that make people uncomfortable. However does not mean that on somethings maybe they have a point.
I'm sure there are things that Rogan is right about. I'm also sure that I'm not going to waste my life sifting through Rogan's nonsense to find these occasional gems. I'm equally sure that a Rogan podcast is not representative of US comedians' attitude towards Scotland in general.
I did not suggest you sift through it, I merely suggested your attitude that it must be crap because he said it was the wrong way to look at it. If you hear what he says and consider it in its own right rather than say he is wrong on other stuff is all I suggested. Its very easy to not listen to what others say because a lot of their opinions oppose are own, doesn't make them always wrong. Heck I am responding to you and listening to what you say when I disagree with about 90% of things you say. Sometimes I might go that bondegzu has a point here and agree with it.
It is a lot more comfortable to only listen to those we can nod along with but that just leads you to the echo chamber
I've not said it must be crap because he said it. Rather, I put forward an explanation -- those who appear on his show are not at all representative -- as to why what was said on the show is unlikely to be informative in this case. My apologies if I was unclear in that.
Seriously, if no one does significant time for this, then all faith in Justice in this country will be lost.
You assume most people currently have faith in our justice system. I don't speak for anyone but me but I lost all faith a couple of decades ago when it became obvious there is a rule for the rich/famous and one for the plebs
I am sure there is some truth in this, but I think the money part is overplayed. Arguably some things are wrong - use of expensiveness to suppress stuff, for instance. Making it too costly to go after wrongdoing. We will see. Someone has lied and lied and lied. With real world consequence.
I thought people would be outraged about the killing of an innocent of the killing of an innocent brazilian electrician.... Result Dick got a promotion the public did nothing
I thought people would be outraged over the killing of a newspaper vendor after the police were shown to be lying through their teeth (Tomlinson)
Result Kier said no charges to be brought the british public did nothing.
You really believe they are going to get incensed about some sub postmasters?
Yes. It’s a criminal conspiracy that’s unjustly imprisoned probably hundreds of people. And has been knowingly and persistently covered up for many years.
There’s no brushing it under the carpet. And no dismissing it as a moment’s misjudgment.
There’s a straightforward choice to be made - by this government, or the next.
Yet none of them will be charged it will all be the fault of kevin who works in the post room and vennels will get a life peerage about 2030 when memory has faded to make up for her taking a small fall in giving up her cbe.....prediction time
The Internet informs me that you cannot make butter from mare's milk, or at least it's very difficult and the butter not very good. This explains why Horse (BatteryCorrect) is so averse to butter.
Seriously, if no one does significant time for this, then all faith in Justice in this country will be lost.
You assume most people currently have faith in our justice system. I don't speak for anyone but me but I lost all faith a couple of decades ago when it became obvious there is a rule for the rich/famous and one for the plebs
The current DPP really needs to have a couple of very senior people appearing from custody in relation to this now. Its starting to look like they gave it to Police Scotland to investigate.
Prediction no one senior will get prosecuted, they may find a junior or two to scapegoat
Remember - the *judge* in the Kids Company case said that it would be unfair to hold the legally liable trustees legally liable for their voluntarily assumed legal liabilities.
The CPS said, when Blair & Co. got caught selling peerages, that it would be unfair to prosecute.
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*will not include lessons. Will not include learning. Will not include Will. Will not include “Be”. Will not include bees.
I don't think that is true.
Kds Company was a CIO (that is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation).so the Trustees were effectively non-executive directors and covered by limited liability in the same way as other company's.
The court case was over whether the Trustees were reckless with their supervision of the finances and were found not to be. There were no allegations of criminality, and at worst they could be barred from other directorships for a time.
The judge said that the Trustees shouldn’t be held to account for not actually doing anything. I mean, ten minutes with the actual books would have revealed chaos. They couldn’t be arsed.
If you are Trustee of a charity you have actual obligations. Moral and legal. They pissed on that.
They wanted to put “Charity Trustee” on their CV, meet the Great & Good and drink champagne at the right events.
Bit like the celebrity scum selling crypto - “We aren’t responsible for selling our reputations on this stuff!”
That simply isn't the case.
The Trustees /directors had a plan to manage the cash flow issues, but the KC was brought down by unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.
I am not suggesting that KC was well run, but that the Trustees were not negligent in their supervision.
My interest is that I am a Trustee of a CIO, so interested in the legal responsibilities that I have taken on.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my (divorced) parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
I can't eat gluten. Fortunately, M&S gluten-free scones are very good. (I eat them with butter.)
Seriously, if no one does significant time for this, then all faith in Justice in this country will be lost.
You assume most people currently have faith in our justice system. I don't speak for anyone but me but I lost all faith a couple of decades ago when it became obvious there is a rule for the rich/famous and one for the plebs
I am sure there is some truth in this, but I think the money part is overplayed. Arguably some things are wrong - use of expensiveness to suppress stuff, for instance. Making it too costly to go after wrongdoing. We will see. Someone has lied and lied and lied. With real world consequence.
I thought people would be outraged about the killing of an innocent of the killing of an innocent brazilian electrician.... Result Dick got a promotion the public did nothing
I thought people would be outraged over the killing of a newspaper vendor after the police were shown to be lying through their teeth (Tomlinson)
Result Kier said no charges to be brought the british public did nothing.
You really believe they are going to get incensed about some sub postmasters?
Yes. It’s a criminal conspiracy that’s unjustly imprisoned probably hundreds of people. And has been knowingly and persistently covered up for many years.
There’s no brushing it under the carpet. And no dismissing it as a moment’s misjudgment.
There’s a straightforward choice to be made - by this government, or the next.
In Rotherham (and similar) cases, rape had become an industry. For many years. This was known about. After the coverup finally fell over, can you count the prosecutions of those in authority, who knew?
You can do it on the toes of one foot. Without taking a sock off.
Indeed. They got away with it. But rapists did go to jail. Eventually.
In this case, though, the evidence against those in authority ought, far more easily, to meet the beyond reasonable doubt test.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
I can't eat gluten. Fortunately, M&S gluten-free scones are very good. (I eat them with butter.)
Butter is fine on scones if you aren't also adding clotted cream....if you are though its like eating pineapple on pizza while listening to radiohead
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
I can't eat gluten. Fortunately, M&S gluten-free scones are very good. (I eat them with butter.)
Yes, M&S gluten-free bakery products do seem to be the business, when we've ended up sharing some with gluten-avoiding friends.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
I wouldn't put butter on a scone, but I'd certainly use butter in the recipe to bake the scone.
I would use butter in the recipe AND put butter on the scone (what else does one put under the jam and clotted cream??).
I put a scone under it
There are very few things in life that can't be made better using a copious amount of butter.
Scones however are one of them, I am not opposed to butter. Its great on potato's and a lot of things like toast and crumpets....scones with clotted cream and jam don't get enhanced by butter though
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
I can't eat gluten. Fortunately, M&S gluten-free scones are very good. (I eat them with butter.)
Yes, M&S gluten-free bakery products do seem to be the business, when we've ended up sharing some with gluten-avoiding friends.
Their seeded cob is among the best gluten-free breads, although the Warburton tiger loaf is also good.
Seriously, if no one does significant time for this, then all faith in Justice in this country will be lost.
You assume most people currently have faith in our justice system. I don't speak for anyone but me but I lost all faith a couple of decades ago when it became obvious there is a rule for the rich/famous and one for the plebs
The current DPP really needs to have a couple of very senior people appearing from custody in relation to this now. Its starting to look like they gave it to Police Scotland to investigate.
Prediction no one senior will get prosecuted, they may find a junior or two to scapegoat
Remember - the *judge* in the Kids Company case said that it would be unfair to hold the legally liable trustees legally liable for their voluntarily assumed legal liabilities.
The CPS said, when Blair & Co. got caught selling peerages, that it would be unfair to prosecute.
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*will not include lessons. Will not include learning. Will not include Will. Will not include “Be”. Will not include bees.
I don't think that is true.
Kds Company was a CIO (that is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation).so the Trustees were effectively non-executive directors and covered by limited liability in the same way as other company's.
The court case was over whether the Trustees were reckless with their supervision of the finances and were found not to be. There were no allegations of criminality, and at worst they could be barred from other directorships for a time.
The judge said that the Trustees shouldn’t be held to account for not actually doing anything. I mean, ten minutes with the actual books would have revealed chaos. They couldn’t be arsed.
If you are Trustee of a charity you have actual obligations. Moral and legal. They pissed on that.
They wanted to put “Charity Trustee” on their CV, meet the Great & Good and drink champagne at the right events.
Bit like the celebrity scum selling crypto - “We aren’t responsible for selling our reputations on this stuff!”
Yep. I was a trustee for a charity by virtue of being involved in a Students' Union and it was impressed on me how much potential liability I would have.
Having looked it up of my of my own volition, I learnt that I should "run it as any prudent businessman would do", or words to that effect, according to a long-deceased Lord Justice a hundred years earlier.
I took that responsibility very seriously and knew it would follow me after I stopped being a Trustee. I was a dewy-eyed student. No excuse for professional, adult persons.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
I can't eat gluten. Fortunately, M&S gluten-free scones are very good. (I eat them with butter.)
Yes, M&S gluten-free bakery products do seem to be the business, when we've ended up sharing some with gluten-avoiding friends.
Gluten free is sort of a sore subject for me currently having had friends round for dinner, changed the whole menu as was told they were gluten free....then when I told them the crumpets I used for the starter was gluten free to reassure them they didnt need to worry they said why we aren't gluten intolerant.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
I wouldn't put butter on a scone, but I'd certainly use butter in the recipe to bake the scone.
I would use butter in the recipe AND put butter on the scone (what else does one put under the jam and clotted cream??).
I put a scone under it
There are very few things in life that can't be made better using a copious amount of butter.
Scones however are one of them, I am not opposed to butter. Its great on potato's and a lot of things like toast and crumpets....scones with clotted cream and jam don't get enhanced by butter though
It's IN the scone recipe, not ON the scone.
We already established we were talking about it being spread on the scone not in the scone recipe
Seriously, if no one does significant time for this, then all faith in Justice in this country will be lost.
You assume most people currently have faith in our justice system. I don't speak for anyone but me but I lost all faith a couple of decades ago when it became obvious there is a rule for the rich/famous and one for the plebs
The current DPP really needs to have a couple of very senior people appearing from custody in relation to this now. Its starting to look like they gave it to Police Scotland to investigate.
Prediction no one senior will get prosecuted, they may find a junior or two to scapegoat
Remember - the *judge* in the Kids Company case said that it would be unfair to hold the legally liable trustees legally liable for their voluntarily assumed legal liabilities.
The CPS said, when Blair & Co. got caught selling peerages, that it would be unfair to prosecute.
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*will not include lessons. Will not include learning. Will not include Will. Will not include “Be”. Will not include bees.
I don't think that is true.
Kds Company was a CIO (that is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation).so the Trustees were effectively non-executive directors and covered by limited liability in the same way as other company's.
The court case was over whether the Trustees were reckless with their supervision of the finances and were found not to be. There were no allegations of criminality, and at worst they could be barred from other directorships for a time.
The judge said that the Trustees shouldn’t be held to account for not actually doing anything. I mean, ten minutes with the actual books would have revealed chaos. They couldn’t be arsed.
If you are Trustee of a charity you have actual obligations. Moral and legal. They pissed on that.
They wanted to put “Charity Trustee” on their CV, meet the Great & Good and drink champagne at the right events.
Bit like the celebrity scum selling crypto - “We aren’t responsible for selling our reputations on this stuff!”
That simply isn't the case.
The Trustees /directors had a plan to manage the cash flow issues, but the KC was brought down by unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.
I am not suggesting that KC was well run, but that the Trustees were not negligent in their supervision.
My interest is that I am a Trustee of a CIO, so interested in the legal responsibilities that I have taken on.
I agree. Being wrong and being negligent are not the same. I was of a view, from coverage at the time, that there was a case against KC trustees. But the judge, who'd reviewed a huge volume of evidence rather than reading some articles like me, ultimately reached a clear conclusion. I respect that and accept my view at the time was probably unfair.
I seem to be in a bind where I can't get life insurance because I'm on a waiting list for cyst removal, and I can't get a mortgage in Ireland without life insurance, but my health insurance won't pay for the cyst removal, and if I pay for it directly then I won't have saved enough that month to convince the bank I can be trusted with a mortgage.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
I wouldn't put butter on a scone, but I'd certainly use butter in the recipe to bake the scone.
I would use butter in the recipe AND put butter on the scone (what else does one put under the jam and clotted cream??).
I put a scone under it
There are very few things in life that can't be made better using a copious amount of butter.
Scones however are one of them, I am not opposed to butter. Its great on potato's and a lot of things like toast and crumpets....scones with clotted cream and jam don't get enhanced by butter though
It's IN the scone recipe, not ON the scone.
We already established we were talking about it being spread on the scone not in the scone recipe
Look, I get that it doesn't *need* butter on it as well as the clotted cream, but if someone's going to give me some butter, it's clearly going on the scone. I'll admit to putting too much topping on the scone when becomes top heavy and falls over.
Seriously, if no one does significant time for this, then all faith in Justice in this country will be lost.
You assume most people currently have faith in our justice system. I don't speak for anyone but me but I lost all faith a couple of decades ago when it became obvious there is a rule for the rich/famous and one for the plebs
The current DPP really needs to have a couple of very senior people appearing from custody in relation to this now. Its starting to look like they gave it to Police Scotland to investigate.
Prediction no one senior will get prosecuted, they may find a junior or two to scapegoat
Remember - the *judge* in the Kids Company case said that it would be unfair to hold the legally liable trustees legally liable for their voluntarily assumed legal liabilities.
The CPS said, when Blair & Co. got caught selling peerages, that it would be unfair to prosecute.
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*will not include lessons. Will not include learning. Will not include Will. Will not include “Be”. Will not include bees.
I don't think that is true.
Kds Company was a CIO (that is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation).so the Trustees were effectively non-executive directors and covered by limited liability in the same way as other company's.
The court case was over whether the Trustees were reckless with their supervision of the finances and were found not to be. There were no allegations of criminality, and at worst they could be barred from other directorships for a time.
The judge said that the Trustees shouldn’t be held to account for not actually doing anything. I mean, ten minutes with the actual books would have revealed chaos. They couldn’t be arsed.
If you are Trustee of a charity you have actual obligations. Moral and legal. They pissed on that.
They wanted to put “Charity Trustee” on their CV, meet the Great & Good and drink champagne at the right events.
Bit like the celebrity scum selling crypto - “We aren’t responsible for selling our reputations on this stuff!”
Yep. I was a trustee for a charity by virtue of being involved in a Students' Union and it was impressed on me how much potential liability I would have.
Having looked it up of my of my own volition, I learnt that I should "run it as any prudent businessman would do", or words to that effect, according to a long-deceased Lord Justice a hundred years earlier.
I took that responsibility very seriously and knew it would follow me after I stopped being a Trustee. I was a dewy-eyed student. No excuse for professional, adult persons.
There is a difference between a CIO and other forms of charity. In unincorporated charities the Trustees do have unlimited personal liability. A CIO structures the charity as a limited liability company (much the same as other limited companies) and in return for these reduced legal risks requires greater scrutiny by the charity commission etc.
It is worth reading this by the firm that represented the Trustees of KC. They won the case brought by the Official Receiver, so do know what they are talking about.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I tend to view the 'Halal' label as shorthand for "this animal was needlessly tortured before beingade into your meal" and therefore give such things a wide berth.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
I can't eat gluten. Fortunately, M&S gluten-free scones are very good. (I eat them with butter.)
The woke hunting is off the scale - the NT have been using dairy-free recipes for many years and now it's a crisis.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
I can't eat gluten. Fortunately, M&S gluten-free scones are very good. (I eat them with butter.)
The woke hunting is off the scale - the NT have been using dairy-free recipes for many years and now it's a crisis.
Can we just stop using the word. It doesn’t mean ANYTHING
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
I can't eat gluten. Fortunately, M&S gluten-free scones are very good. (I eat them with butter.)
The woke hunting is off the scale - the NT have been using dairy-free recipes for many years and now it's a crisis.
Using dairy free recipes is fine as long as they signpost it on the menu so you have an informed choice. I don't have a problem with eating halal meat personally, some do as evinced up thread and that should also be mentioned on the menu, same as kosher or anything where people might steer away from it. For example if you went to a sandwich shop and ordered a cheese sandwich a lot of people might be unimpressed if there cheese sandwich was made with vegan cheese (because its absolutely digusting taste wise) rather than cheese made of milk etc.
By all means sell only that but don't surprise people is the point
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I tend to view the 'Halal' label as shorthand for "this animal was needlessly tortured before beingade into your meal" and therefore give such things a wide berth.
Same is pretty much true for any meat from an abattoir.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
I can't eat gluten. Fortunately, M&S gluten-free scones are very good. (I eat them with butter.)
The woke hunting is off the scale - the NT have been using dairy-free recipes for many years and now it's a crisis.
WHY HAVE THEY BEEN CONCEALING THIS FACT FROM US FOR SO LONG!
I look forward you posting - and celebrating - the upcoming record performance of Starmer, when he registers more Labour votes in England than Corbyn achieved in 2017.
Why nothing will change
What POLICY are you looking forward to as a positive change under SKS
Not being these Tories is an absolute killer of a policy.
It's literally not.
All I see is worse times for benefit claimants, more austerity.
Your blind faith things will improve is pretty pathetic if you can't give a single example.
It's not blind faith it's a rational comparison of one thing against another.
8 games to go. We've got Burnley, Brentford, Forest and Sheffield United to play at home. And Luton away. So all five of the rest of the bottom six. We should stay up from here.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
I can't eat gluten. Fortunately, M&S gluten-free scones are very good. (I eat them with butter.)
The woke hunting is off the scale - the NT have been using dairy-free recipes for many years and now it's a crisis.
Can we just stop using the word. It doesn’t mean ANYTHING
It does. It means anything that is allergic to gammons and DM readers. Because they use that word about the NT.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
I can't eat gluten. Fortunately, M&S gluten-free scones are very good. (I eat them with butter.)
The woke hunting is off the scale - the NT have been using dairy-free recipes for many years and now it's a crisis.
Can we just stop using the word. It doesn’t mean ANYTHING
It does. It means anything that is allergic to gammons and DM readers. Because they use that word about the NT.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I tend to view the 'Halal' label as shorthand for "this animal was needlessly tortured before beingade into your meal" and therefore give such things a wide berth.
Torment makes animal flesh more delicious, that's just hard science.
BREAKING: JK Rowling's comments about new hate crime laws "are not assessed to be criminal", police have said, as they confirmed no further action would be taken
Wasn't this already known up front? Specifically, that the exposition of gender critical thought was not within the remit of the thing.
Yes. There was never any possibility of her comments being deemed to be potentially criminal.
They would never fight her in court, they will save it for their secret register where the plebs don't even know they have been marked down for some fkucwitted moron's opinion. Plod will take easy option. It is all virtue signalling by the clowns running the SNP and ruining the country, a bigger bunch of rubbish you would struggle to find.
Jo Rowling knows they’ll never go after her, as she has basically unlimited financial resources and a worldwide media profile.
What I think she’s doing, is to get police and prosecutors to quickly define where they are drawing the line, such that others can use the same defences in future. She’ll probably speak out, and possibly even dip into her pocket for a few lawyers, if she sees that initial standard being eroded over time.
Either that of the hype over the law was substantially bunkum all along, and never intended to inhibit opinions like hers.
The comments from many in the Scottish Government on the matter appear somewhat different. I shall defer to the excellent Mrs @Cyclefree and yesterday’s header on the subject.
It’s also worth noting that this discussion has crossed the Pond - here’s an epic five-hour podcast with Joe Rogan and four comedian friends last week, that opened with discussions about this new law. https://youtube.com/watch?v=cV71YMAwIXY It’s fair to say that not many American comics will turn up in Edinburgh this year, if they feel that their speech might be policed by the actual Scottish police. That’s a direct hit to the Scottish economy, for as long as it takes for the actual implications of this law to become known by case law and appellate courts.
Comedians who want to appear on Rogan's show are not representative of all US comedians. Rogan has shared COVID-19 conspiracy theories (and HIV conspiracy theories). He's shared anti-vax views. He's shared antisemitic tropes (e.g. saying the "idea that Jewish people are not into money is ridiculous"). He's a polarising guy with some views that are, at best, eccentric, or at worst dangerous.
In other words, he's a loon. Why on earth are you listening to him? He spreads nonsense about Ukraine too, and supports Trump's position on it.
Just because someone is a loon, and a conspiracist theorist( and I agree Rogan is) does not however mean he is automatically wrong about everything. Cf Griffin ( a total racist and fascist) but he was correct about the grooming gangs.
Dismissing what people say because they also say things that we violently disgree with or think are looney is easy. I am sure people do it with me because I often say things that make people uncomfortable. However does not mean that on somethings maybe they have a point.
I'm sure there are things that Rogan is right about. I'm also sure that I'm not going to waste my life sifting through Rogan's nonsense to find these occasional gems.
I don't know what Rogan's track record is like, but it can be very frustrating when peopel throw out a million 'just asking question' nonsense ideas, and then either get one thing right, or say something so generic that of course it is broadly true, and have their fans try to use that as evidence of splendid prognostication and insight.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I tend to view the 'Halal' label as shorthand for "this animal was needlessly tortured before beingade into your meal" and therefore give such things a wide berth.
Same is pretty much true for any meat from an abattoir.
Seriously, if no one does significant time for this, then all faith in Justice in this country will be lost.
You assume most people currently have faith in our justice system. I don't speak for anyone but me but I lost all faith a couple of decades ago when it became obvious there is a rule for the rich/famous and one for the plebs
The current DPP really needs to have a couple of very senior people appearing from custody in relation to this now. Its starting to look like they gave it to Police Scotland to investigate.
Prediction no one senior will get prosecuted, they may find a junior or two to scapegoat
Remember - the *judge* in the Kids Company case said that it would be unfair to hold the legally liable trustees legally liable for their voluntarily assumed legal liabilities.
The CPS said, when Blair & Co. got caught selling peerages, that it would be unfair to prosecute.
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*will not include lessons. Will not include learning. Will not include Will. Will not include “Be”. Will not include bees.
I don't think that is true.
Kds Company was a CIO (that is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation).so the Trustees were effectively non-executive directors and covered by limited liability in the same way as other company's.
The court case was over whether the Trustees were reckless with their supervision of the finances and were found not to be. There were no allegations of criminality, and at worst they could be barred from other directorships for a time.
The judge said that the Trustees shouldn’t be held to account for not actually doing anything. I mean, ten minutes with the actual books would have revealed chaos. They couldn’t be arsed.
If you are Trustee of a charity you have actual obligations. Moral and legal. They pissed on that.
They wanted to put “Charity Trustee” on their CV, meet the Great & Good and drink champagne at the right events.
Bit like the celebrity scum selling crypto - “We aren’t responsible for selling our reputations on this stuff!”
Yep. I was a trustee for a charity by virtue of being involved in a Students' Union and it was impressed on me how much potential liability I would have.
Having looked it up of my of my own volition, I learnt that I should "run it as any prudent businessman would do", or words to that effect, according to a long-deceased Lord Justice a hundred years earlier.
I took that responsibility very seriously and knew it would follow me after I stopped being a Trustee. I was a dewy-eyed student. No excuse for professional, adult persons.
There is a difference between a CIO and other forms of charity. In unincorporated charities the Trustees do have unlimited personal liability. A CIO structures the charity as a limited liability company (much the same as other limited companies) and in return for these reduced legal risks requires greater scrutiny by the charity commission etc.
It is worth reading this by the firm that represented the Trustees of KC. They won the case brought by the Official Receiver, so do know what they are talking about.
I don't doubt that they won the case and so the counsel are 'correct' on the basis that the particular structure of the charity made those responsible...less responsible than most people would have expected them to be. I don't think that negates Malmesbury's general points either.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I tend to view the 'Halal' label as shorthand for "this animal was needlessly tortured before beingade into your meal" and therefore give such things a wide berth.
Same is pretty much true for any meat from an abattoir.
Not true. Halal does not allow stunning.
Stunning does not stop all the needless torture of the abattoir.
I disagree strongly with the way Cyclefree has gone about some of the things they’ve said on the trans issue. She has also said many things I agree with. We don’t get on hugely well.
That’s my summary. Not going to debate this again.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I tend to view the 'Halal' label as shorthand for "this animal was needlessly tortured before beingade into your meal" and therefore give such things a wide berth.
Same is pretty much true for any meat from an abattoir.
Not true. Halal does not allow stunning.
Stunning does not stop all the needless torture of the abattoir.
No, but stunning is, in my view, more humane than not stunning. Eating meat means perforce, animals have to die. That should be done as humanly as possible. Halal is not, in my view.
I disagree strongly with the way Cyclefree has gone about some of the things they’ve said on the trans issue. She has also said many things I agree with. We don’t get on hugely well.
That’s my summary. Not going to debate this again.
So why post this now, when no one is discussing it?
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I dunno. My mother apologised to me for having foisted margarine on us during our childhood out of a misplaced sense of healthy eating. Neither of my parents have ever apologised for anything else about our upbringing. It's a big deal.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
I can't eat gluten. Fortunately, M&S gluten-free scones are very good. (I eat them with butter.)
The woke hunting is off the scale - the NT have been using dairy-free recipes for many years and now it's a crisis.
Can we just stop using the word. It doesn’t mean ANYTHING
It does. It means anything that is allergic to gammons and DM readers. Because they use that word about the NT.
This is outright lying and perjury and by the Post Office's lawyers to the courts.
Who taped all these calls? Why? Who knew about them? And why are they only being released now?
I would assume a canny junior who wanted to cover their ass rather than be shat upon when senior ranks said "No one told me"
There is a real skill in getting your phone in a good spot for audio quality while not making it obvious what you are up to.
We are dealing with a professional here.
You are assuming these recordings are in an office environement rather than a recording of a phone call.....there are apps for the latter
Also why they chose to record these calls/meetings? They knew what they were doing and why these were relevant/important.
It is possible that there are lots more of course. One question for the Post Office is this: were senior management calls/meetings routinely recorded? Remember it was this question which revealed the existence of the White House tapes during Watergate.
Are there tapes of calls with Business Department officials? Or Ministers? Or UKGI's representative on the Board?
Seriously, if no one does significant time for this, then all faith in Justice in this country will be lost.
You assume most people currently have faith in our justice system. I don't speak for anyone but me but I lost all faith a couple of decades ago when it became obvious there is a rule for the rich/famous and one for the plebs
The current DPP really needs to have a couple of very senior people appearing from custody in relation to this now. Its starting to look like they gave it to Police Scotland to investigate.
Prediction no one senior will get prosecuted, they may find a junior or two to scapegoat
Remember - the *judge* in the Kids Company case said that it would be unfair to hold the legally liable trustees legally liable for their voluntarily assumed legal liabilities.
The CPS said, when Blair & Co. got caught selling peerages, that it would be unfair to prosecute.
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*will not include lessons. Will not include learning. Will not include Will. Will not include “Be”. Will not include bees.
I don't think that is true.
Kds Company was a CIO (that is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation).so the Trustees were effectively non-executive directors and covered by limited liability in the same way as other company's.
The court case was over whether the Trustees were reckless with their supervision of the finances and were found not to be. There were no allegations of criminality, and at worst they could be barred from other directorships for a time.
The judge said that the Trustees shouldn’t be held to account for not actually doing anything. I mean, ten minutes with the actual books would have revealed chaos. They couldn’t be arsed.
If you are Trustee of a charity you have actual obligations. Moral and legal. They pissed on that.
They wanted to put “Charity Trustee” on their CV, meet the Great & Good and drink champagne at the right events.
Bit like the celebrity scum selling crypto - “We aren’t responsible for selling our reputations on this stuff!”
Yep. I was a trustee for a charity by virtue of being involved in a Students' Union and it was impressed on me how much potential liability I would have.
Having looked it up of my of my own volition, I learnt that I should "run it as any prudent businessman would do", or words to that effect, according to a long-deceased Lord Justice a hundred years earlier.
I took that responsibility very seriously and knew it would follow me after I stopped being a Trustee. I was a dewy-eyed student. No excuse for professional, adult persons.
There is a difference between a CIO and other forms of charity. In unincorporated charities the Trustees do have unlimited personal liability. A CIO structures the charity as a limited liability company (much the same as other limited companies) and in return for these reduced legal risks requires greater scrutiny by the charity commission etc.
It is worth reading this by the firm that represented the Trustees of KC. They won the case brought by the Official Receiver, so do know what they are talking about.
I don't doubt that they won the case and so the counsel are 'correct' on the basis that the particular structure of the charity made those responsible...less responsible than most people would have expected them to be. I don't think that negates Malmesbury's general points either.
A major reason for any company (including CIO) is to limit personal liability. They are even called "Limited Company" for that reason.
Malmesbury simply gets his points wrong, and fails to explain why the Judge is considered part of his "NU10k" but the Official Receiver is not.
He seems to cast the net so broadly and vaguely as to be meaningless.
I disagree strongly with the way Cyclefree has gone about some of the things they’ve said on the trans issue. She has also said many things I agree with. We don’t get on hugely well.
That’s my summary. Not going to debate this again.
So why post this now, when no one is discussing it?
They literally are above. Not my fault you can’t read.
I disagree strongly with the way Cyclefree has gone about some of the things they’ve said on the trans issue. She has also said many things I agree with. We don’t get on hugely well.
That’s my summary. Not going to debate this again.
So why post this now, when no one is discussing it?
They literally are above. Not my fault you can’t read.
Talking about Joe Rogan. You seem fixated on JK Rowling.
Seriously, if no one does significant time for this, then all faith in Justice in this country will be lost.
You assume most people currently have faith in our justice system. I don't speak for anyone but me but I lost all faith a couple of decades ago when it became obvious there is a rule for the rich/famous and one for the plebs
The current DPP really needs to have a couple of very senior people appearing from custody in relation to this now. Its starting to look like they gave it to Police Scotland to investigate.
Prediction no one senior will get prosecuted, they may find a junior or two to scapegoat
Remember - the *judge* in the Kids Company case said that it would be unfair to hold the legally liable trustees legally liable for their voluntarily assumed legal liabilities.
The CPS said, when Blair & Co. got caught selling peerages, that it would be unfair to prosecute.
Lessons Will Be Learned*
*will not include lessons. Will not include learning. Will not include Will. Will not include “Be”. Will not include bees.
I don't think that is true.
Kds Company was a CIO (that is a Charitable Incorporated Organisation).so the Trustees were effectively non-executive directors and covered by limited liability in the same way as other company's.
The court case was over whether the Trustees were reckless with their supervision of the finances and were found not to be. There were no allegations of criminality, and at worst they could be barred from other directorships for a time.
The judge said that the Trustees shouldn’t be held to account for not actually doing anything. I mean, ten minutes with the actual books would have revealed chaos. They couldn’t be arsed.
If you are Trustee of a charity you have actual obligations. Moral and legal. They pissed on that.
They wanted to put “Charity Trustee” on their CV, meet the Great & Good and drink champagne at the right events.
Bit like the celebrity scum selling crypto - “We aren’t responsible for selling our reputations on this stuff!”
Yep. I was a trustee for a charity by virtue of being involved in a Students' Union and it was impressed on me how much potential liability I would have.
Having looked it up of my of my own volition, I learnt that I should "run it as any prudent businessman would do", or words to that effect, according to a long-deceased Lord Justice a hundred years earlier.
I took that responsibility very seriously and knew it would follow me after I stopped being a Trustee. I was a dewy-eyed student. No excuse for professional, adult persons.
There is a difference between a CIO and other forms of charity. In unincorporated charities the Trustees do have unlimited personal liability. A CIO structures the charity as a limited liability company (much the same as other limited companies) and in return for these reduced legal risks requires greater scrutiny by the charity commission etc.
It is worth reading this by the firm that represented the Trustees of KC. They won the case brought by the Official Receiver, so do know what they are talking about.
I don't doubt that they won the case and so the counsel are 'correct' on the basis that the particular structure of the charity made those responsible...less responsible than most people would have expected them to be. I don't think that negates Malmesbury's general points either.
The charity was in chaos almost from the beginning. The Trustees found out, according to their court testimony, only when things became publicly pear shaped.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
This butter vs margerine narritive misses that another typical ingredient in scones is, er, milk.
I disagree strongly with the way Cyclefree has gone about some of the things they’ve said on the trans issue. She has also said many things I agree with. We don’t get on hugely well.
That’s my summary. Not going to debate this again.
So why post this now, when no one is discussing it?
They literally are above. Not my fault you can’t read.
Talking about Joe Rogan. You seem fixated on JK Rowling.
As fixated as you are by trying to moderate my comments ROFL
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I tend to view the 'Halal' label as shorthand for "this animal was needlessly tortured before beingade into your meal" and therefore give such things a wide berth.
Same is pretty much true for any meat from an abattoir.
Not true. Halal does not allow stunning.
Stunning does not stop all the needless torture of the abattoir.
No, but stunning is, in my view, more humane than not stunning. Eating meat means perforce, animals have to die. That should be done as humanly as possible. Halal is not, in my view.
To an extent I agree, but that is even more an argument against industrial farming techniques than it is against Halal slaughter methods.
Do you only eat meat produced in ways that would pass muster with Compassion in World Farming when eating in cafes etc?
BREAKING: JK Rowling's comments about new hate crime laws "are not assessed to be criminal", police have said, as they confirmed no further action would be taken
Wasn't this already known up front? Specifically, that the exposition of gender critical thought was not within the remit of the thing.
Yes. There was never any possibility of her comments being deemed to be potentially criminal.
They would never fight her in court, they will save it for their secret register where the plebs don't even know they have been marked down for some fkucwitted moron's opinion. Plod will take easy option. It is all virtue signalling by the clowns running the SNP and ruining the country, a bigger bunch of rubbish you would struggle to find.
Jo Rowling knows they’ll never go after her, as she has basically unlimited financial resources and a worldwide media profile.
What I think she’s doing, is to get police and prosecutors to quickly define where they are drawing the line, such that others can use the same defences in future. She’ll probably speak out, and possibly even dip into her pocket for a few lawyers, if she sees that initial standard being eroded over time.
Either that of the hype over the law was substantially bunkum all along, and never intended to inhibit opinions like hers.
The comments from many in the Scottish Government on the matter appear somewhat different. I shall defer to the excellent Mrs @Cyclefree and yesterday’s header on the subject.
It’s also worth noting that this discussion has crossed the Pond - here’s an epic five-hour podcast with Joe Rogan and four comedian friends last week, that opened with discussions about this new law. https://youtube.com/watch?v=cV71YMAwIXY It’s fair to say that not many American comics will turn up in Edinburgh this year, if they feel that their speech might be policed by the actual Scottish police. That’s a direct hit to the Scottish economy, for as long as it takes for the actual implications of this law to become known by case law and appellate courts.
Comedians who want to appear on Rogan's show are not representative of all US comedians. Rogan has shared COVID-19 conspiracy theories (and HIV conspiracy theories). He's shared anti-vax views. He's shared antisemitic tropes (e.g. saying the "idea that Jewish people are not into money is ridiculous"). He's a polarising guy with some views that are, at best, eccentric, or at worst dangerous.
In other words, he's a loon. Why on earth are you listening to him? He spreads nonsense about Ukraine too, and supports Trump's position on it.
Just because someone is a loon, and a conspiracist theorist( and I agree Rogan is) does not however mean he is automatically wrong about everything. Cf Griffin ( a total racist and fascist) but he was correct about the grooming gangs.
Dismissing what people say because they also say things that we violently disgree with or think are looney is easy. I am sure people do it with me because I often say things that make people uncomfortable. However does not mean that on somethings maybe they have a point.
To give an example of this and @kinabalu this is not intended to be offensive, I often violently disagree with his views and find some of them ludicrous, as I am sure he does mine. However I do read what he has written usually and sometimes agree he has a point. I judge what is said not the person saying it being the point
No offence taken. Given your usual wall to wall negativity I will take that to the bank, whistling the whole way.
I disagree strongly with the way Cyclefree has gone about some of the things they’ve said on the trans issue. She has also said many things I agree with. We don’t get on hugely well.
That’s my summary. Not going to debate this again.
You don't have to debate anything if you don't want to. The great thing about PB is that it's notionally about betting, so you can instead take a step back and discuss the political implications instead.
On Trans - the kind of voter energised by this debate has already picked a side : Labour/Green or Tory/Reform. You get a few people who don't fit that generalisation.
The challenge for both sides is not putting off moderate voters by being massive arseholes about the issue. My view is that this is a larger risk for the right. For example, Rowling's tweets feel gratuitously offensive to me. Nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but if the Tories run on anti-Trans rhetoric it is at best irrelevant to voters, at worst utterly toxic.
Don't forget that British people are quite nice in person.
I disagree strongly with the way Cyclefree has gone about some of the things they’ve said on the trans issue. She has also said many things I agree with. We don’t get on hugely well.
That’s my summary. Not going to debate this again.
Why on earth are you bringing this up? You have said in the past that you consider me a friend. There is no basis for you saying that "we don't get on hugely well". I have no strong views about you either way; you are simply one of the people on this forum with whom I interact.
I have no idea why you are now seeking to make me some sort of villain as if I am somehow responsible for this non-existent poor relationship you claim.
I wish you well. You have a different opinion. It would be nice if you actually engaged with points I make (I responded to one of your questions last night but note that you have not responded). But that is your prerogative. And it does not bother me either way.
But stop with the "poor me - I'm a victim of wicked old Cyclefree" act. It really does you no credit.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!! dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
Who the hell uses either on scones, jam and clotted cream are the only things that should be on scones unless you are a philistine
Do scones not require butter/margarine in the recipie?
Yes. All things being equal I'd expect butter to produce a better-tasting scone, but one made with margarine is likely to be cheaper and possibly shelf stable for longer.
There can be issues around ingredients for cafes etc. making sure things are safe for those with allergies is important. Respecting religious choices too. However I do think sometimes the non religious have their views ignored in favour of the religious. An example is using only Halal meat. As a non religious person I find Halal a disgusting practice and not one that should be imposed on people. Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
I tend to view the 'Halal' label as shorthand for "this animal was needlessly tortured before beingade into your meal" and therefore give such things a wide berth.
Same is pretty much true for any meat from an abattoir.
Not true. Halal does not allow stunning.
I agree with you about non-stun slaughter. However, halal does vary - under the previous government we were able to persuade all but one of the main halal slaughterhouses to introduce stunning, though we didn't publicise it as we didn't want fundamentalists getting on their case. It's slipped back since, but there is still a large sector (35%) of stunned halal meat.
Like me, you may find this lawsuit entertaining: "New York inmates are suing the state over its plan to lockdown prisons during next week’s solar eclipse, alleging that in barring them from viewing the rare phenomenon, the corrections department is stripping them of their constitutional right to exercise their religion.
Comments
If you are Trustee of a charity you have actual obligations. Moral and legal. They pissed on that.
They wanted to put “Charity Trustee” on their CV, meet the Great & Good and drink champagne at the right events.
Bit like the celebrity scum selling crypto - “We aren’t responsible for selling our reputations on this stuff!”
All I see is worse times for benefit claimants, more austerity.
Your blind faith things will improve is pretty pathetic if you can't give a single example.
Yesterday the Daily Mail claimed @nationaltrust has 'secretly' stopped using butter in its scones in a 'virtue-signalling betrayal' of heritage. It now transpires the very same Daily Mail glowingly published our scone recipe in 2018 MADE WITH MARGARINE!!!
dailym.ai/2FLXvMe
ROFL
The only other fringe candidates are Count Binface, and Femy Amin standing for the Animal Welfare Party, who might take a few votes from Garbett. In the Assembly elections, there are more threats to Labour from the Socialist Party of Great Britain, the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition and Rejoin EU.
Fringe candidates took a total of 12.5% of the mayoral vote last time around, so they do matter... except they don't because Khan's margin over Hall is going to be humongous.
Indeed that's a large part of Putins motivation for his 2022 invasion of Ukraine. His equipment was rapidly becoming obsolete, and too expensive to upgrade.
They are going to be no better than the Tories.
At the time of writing the situation with Post Office management is this -
1. The Chair has been sacked. No replacement has been appointed.
2. The Deputy CEO is leaving.
3. The CFO is on extended gardening leave.
4. The CEO is under investigation.
5. The General Counsel has been reprimanded by the SRA.
6. Most of the HR department appear to have left.
I love those mints, favourite old school sweet, the little chew in the centre makes it, and am better disposed to Everton the team as a result.
Obviously, the fact they are not Liverpool helps greatly as well
But, Mrs Rata demands that Ipswich are not to be trusted, so I'm sure we might find some point of agreement in that.
It’s a criminal conspiracy that’s unjustly imprisoned probably hundreds of people. And has been knowingly and persistently covered up for many years.
There’s no brushing it under the carpet.
And no dismissing it as a moment’s misjudgment.
There’s a straightforward choice to be made - by this government, or the next.
It is a lot more comfortable to only listen to those we can nod along with but that just leads you to the echo chamber
But on tea brack, or a hot cross bun, by all means, deploy the butter.
Takes all sorts.
Surely a missed opportunity here to call the new Perth Museum cafe "Scone"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_West_(London_Assembly_constituency)
You can do it on the toes of one foot. Without taking a sock off.
Margarine instead of butter is trivial in comparison.
The Trustees /directors had a plan to manage the cash flow issues, but the KC was brought down by unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.
I am not suggesting that KC was well run, but that the Trustees were not negligent in their supervision.
My interest is that I am a Trustee of a CIO, so interested in the legal responsibilities that I have taken on.
Obviously there are some people who are lactose intolerant, and it is right to make some accommodations for such poor benighted souls. But, since they wouldn't be able to have clotted cream on their margarine scone, perhaps they'd be better off having some other cake where the fat is provided by vegetable oil, rather than pointlessly having a scone adulterated with margarine?
CorrectHorseButtery
But rapists did go to jail. Eventually.
In this case, though, the evidence against those in authority ought, far more easily, to meet the beyond reasonable doubt test.
Having looked it up of my of my own volition, I learnt that I should "run it as any prudent businessman would do", or words to that effect, according to a long-deceased Lord Justice a hundred years earlier.
I took that responsibility very seriously and knew it would follow me after I stopped being a Trustee. I was a dewy-eyed student. No excuse for professional, adult persons.
I seem to be in a bind where I can't get life insurance because I'm on a waiting list for cyst removal, and I can't get a mortgage in Ireland without life insurance, but my health insurance won't pay for the cyst removal, and if I pay for it directly then I won't have saved enough that month to convince the bank I can be trusted with a mortgage.
It is worth reading this by the firm that represented the Trustees of KC. They won the case brought by the Official Receiver, so do know what they are talking about.
https://bateswells.co.uk/updates/kids-company-faqs/
By all means sell only that but don't surprise people is the point
Etc
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13257849/National-Trust-scones-vegan-woke-vegetable-spread.html
Edit: apparently it's all because of slavery. And I still want to know what the Empire did in Madeira that Mr Cash MP is so hypersensitive about it.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6w7qstiUKieoUNc49
We are dealing with a professional here.
She also is right about certain things.
I disagree strongly with the way Cyclefree has gone about some of the things they’ve said on the trans issue. She has also said many things I agree with. We don’t get on hugely well.
That’s my summary. Not going to debate this again.
Eating meat means perforce, animals have to die. That should be done as humanly as possible. Halal is not, in my view.
It makes them lighter and fluffier.
It is possible that there are lots more of course. One question for the Post Office is this: were senior management calls/meetings routinely recorded? Remember it was this question which revealed the existence of the White House tapes during Watergate.
Are there tapes of calls with Business Department officials? Or Ministers? Or UKGI's representative on the Board?
Malmesbury simply gets his points wrong, and fails to explain why the Judge is considered part of his "NU10k" but the Official Receiver is not.
He seems to cast the net so broadly and vaguely as to be meaningless.
A bunch of chocolate fire guards.
Do you only eat meat produced in ways that would pass muster with Compassion in World Farming when eating in cafes etc?
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/your-food/meat-poultry/
On Trans - the kind of voter energised by this debate has already picked a side : Labour/Green or Tory/Reform. You get a few people who don't fit that generalisation.
The challenge for both sides is not putting off moderate voters by being massive arseholes about the issue. My view is that this is a larger risk for the right. For example, Rowling's tweets feel gratuitously offensive to me. Nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but if the Tories run on anti-Trans rhetoric it is at best irrelevant to voters, at worst utterly toxic.
Don't forget that British people are quite nice in person.
What is happening to this country
Kinda seems like an obvious date in the running - five years from the last election, late, but not have a campaign over Christmas late.
I can see that there are reasonably decent arguments for other months, but 10/1 seems very long for what wouldn't be an absurd choice.
I have no idea why you are now seeking to make me some sort of villain as if I am somehow responsible for this non-existent poor relationship you claim.
I wish you well. You have a different opinion. It would be nice if you actually engaged with points I make (I responded to one of your questions last night but note that you have not responded). But that is your prerogative. And it does not bother me either way.
But stop with the "poor me - I'm a victim of wicked old Cyclefree" act. It really does you no credit.
Stay well.
I am legitimately baffled the summer isn’t odds on. I mean, Rishi basically has to call an election when he loses in May right?
https://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaign/slaughter
"New York inmates are suing the state over its plan to lockdown prisons during next week’s solar eclipse, alleging that in barring them from viewing the rare phenomenon, the corrections department is stripping them of their constitutional right to exercise their religion.
The six plaintiffs in the class-action suit filed Friday, who are Christian, Muslim, Santerian and atheist, are asking a judge to allow them to see the celestial event, arguing it has religious significance."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/04/02/inmates-sue-solar-eclipse-lockdown/