Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Cleverly becomes the favourite – politicalbetting.com

1235

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,659

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ouch.

    Biden signs emergency declaration as Hurricane Milton approaches Florida
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4919619-biden-signs-disaster-declaration-florida/
    ...Milton on Monday strengthened into a Category 5 hurricane as it approached Florida, with officials warning of a dangerous storm surge in Tampa Bay and urging certain areas to evacuate.
    The Associated Press reported the storm could make landfall on Wednesday. It is expected to move across Florida toward the Atlantic Ocean, which would mean other states would largely be spared from its impact.
    Milton is arriving in Florida as the Sunshine State, as well as Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, are still recovering from the devastating effects of Hurricane Helene. That stormed killed more than 200 people after hitting the United States a little more than one week ago...

    I wonder whether this will harm the climate change deniers standing in the November election.

    Trump is about 4% ahead in Florida and Scott also 4% ahead for the Senate. Florida lost to GOP is a game changer.

    Whether the Florida hurricane leads more people to vote Dem or Rep, will depend entirely on whether it’s the State or Federal governments seen to be leading the relief efforts.

    The view from the Helene aftermath was not in the Feds’ favour.
    It also depends on whether some GOP supporters change their mind on the dangers of climate change and reject the deniers.
    Preposterous to put down freak weather events down to climate change. That’s little more than blaming angry gods for an earth quake.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene says hurricane is steered by "them".

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-georgia-hurricane-helene-b2623999.html
    This is your frequent friendly reminder that the USA does have a weather army.
    Does it?
    Yes.
    Details, please.
    From Wikipedia:

    U.S. Weather Force

    The United States Weather Force (USWF) is a top-secret, specialized military unit established to leverage advanced climate-control technologies for national defense and strategic military operations. Formed in the late 20th century, the USWF utilizes cutting-edge weather manipulation tools, including space-based lasers, artificial storm generation, and atmospheric disruption devices, to target enemy forces and infrastructure. This elite division, officially part of the U.S. Department of Defense, has been at the forefront of global military dominance through non-conventional warfare methods. While its existence remains shrouded in controversy and secrecy, leaked reports and declassified documents suggest that the USWF's capabilities are unparalleled, able to weaponize natural phenomena such as hurricanes, droughts, and even lightning storms. Critics of the program argue that the militarization of weather poses significant ethical and environmental risks, while supporters maintain that it is a vital tool for maintaining U.S. security in a rapidly evolving global threat landscape.

    :|

    I've never read that before. I just knew they had a huge weather division with generals etc. They probably have more people in their weather army than we do in our army army.
    Rumour has it that Ian McCaskill ran it for a while but was sacked when he deployed it just to spite Michael Fish.
    Aww. You're really very funny - I don't care what people say.
    I don't know if you're joking or if you really believe it...
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,477

    I cannot believe PB isn't celebrating the birthday of one of the greatest singers of all time from the greatest band of all time.

    Today is Thom Yorke's birthday.

    Today should be a national holiday for the front man of Radiohead.

    Indeed, every day should be a holiday for Radiohead.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,572

    HYUFD said:

    Back in March, a hit-and-run driver seriously injured a 15-year old boy in our village. In June, he was jailed for one year and eleven months. He has already been released, after serving just eleven weeks.

    And is now living in the village, near where the boy and his family live. The boy has still not recovered from the injuries sustained.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wvdmewn71o

    This sort of story, local as it is, does the court and justice system no favours at all.

    Driving at 37mph in a 20mph zone albeit leaving the scene, plus a 5 year driving ban, doesn't seem that far off given the offence. Albeit maybe a bit more for leaving the scene.

    It was of course the Starmer government that let him out early as a non violent offender with a less than 4 year sentence, not the judges
    Torched his own car as well. I can understand 1 year 11 months, serving half for good behaviour. But 11 weeks - less than three months - is far too little given the injuries it has given the kid.
    I think the important thing is the disqualification from driving. 5 years and 4 months is longer than in a lot of cases, but still feels far too short, and the government wouldn't need to spend £££ on accommodating the guy at His Majesty's Pleasure to double or triple the period of disqualification, or even to make it for life.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,913

    I cannot believe PB isn't celebrating the birthday of one of the greatest singers of all time from the greatest band of all time.

    Today is Thom Yorke's birthday.

    Today should be a national holiday for the front man of Radiohead.

    are you saying that some years ago there was a new Yorke on this day?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,898
    MattW said:

    Interesting argument on legal costs in the WAG vs WAG argument.

    Vardy: £1.8m for Rooney's lawyers is too much - why should I be charged for the Nobu hotel and alcoholic drinks?

    (Original costs budget was ~£540k.)

    Rooney: You took the legal action, sweetheart.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g53vxjlpjo

    She does have a point on alcoholic drinks and expensive hotels. They are not a necessary part of the legal expenses
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,460

    I cannot believe PB isn't celebrating the birthday of one of the greatest singers of all time from the greatest band of all time.

    I didn't know you were a John Cougar Mellencamp fan.

    And it's also Thom Yorke's birthday
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,066

    Back in March, a hit-and-run driver seriously injured a 15-year old boy in our village. In June, he was jailed for one year and eleven months. He has already been released, after serving just eleven weeks.

    And is now living in the village, near where the boy and his family live. The boy has still not recovered from the injuries sustained.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wvdmewn71o

    This sort of story, local as it is, does the court and justice system no favours at all.

    Speeding, hit a child, left the scene and torched the car? 5 year ban from driving?

    That should be a candidate for a life ban, IMO. I'm no fan of jail, but you need a much stronger deterrent than that combination of punishments.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,190
    Scott_xP said:

    I cannot believe PB isn't celebrating the birthday of one of the greatest singers of all time from the greatest band of all time.

    I didn't know you were a John Cougar Mellencamp fan.

    And it's also Thom Yorke's birthday
    How can he spell wrongly both "Tom" and "York"?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,288
    "The Americans wanted [UK] to retain sovereignty" over Chagos Islands?

    Total horseshit as quick review of US media commentary demonstrates.
  • The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Which is basically the case.

    The age of the British Empire died the better part of a century ago now.

    The only reason we have an interest in Chagos is the interest in the Diego Garcia base which we have with the Americans.

    If it meets all their concerns, what extra concerns do we have that they don't?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,257

    I cannot believe PB isn't celebrating the birthday of one of the greatest singers of all time from the greatest band of all time.

    Huh? Dave Gahan was born on 9 May!
  • MattW said:

    Interesting argument on legal costs in the WAG vs WAG argument.

    Vardy: £1.8m for Rooney's lawyers is too much - why should I be charged for the Nobu hotel and alcoholic drinks?

    (Original costs budget was ~£540k.)

    Rooney: You took the legal action, sweetheart.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g53vxjlpjo

    She does have a point on alcoholic drinks and expensive hotels. They are not a necessary part of the legal expenses
    It's not really that interesting and argument. Having costs awarded against you in any case doesn't mean writing a blank cheque. The winner has to show they are reasonable and legitimately incurred. That's fair enough and well established.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,956

    I cannot believe PB isn't celebrating the birthday of one of the greatest singers of all time from the greatest band of all time.

    Today is Thom Yorke's birthday.

    Today should be a national holiday for the front man of Radiohead.

    Indeed, every day should be a holiday for Radiohead.
    A holiday from Radiohead, surely?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,739

    The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Which is basically the case.

    The age of the British Empire died the better part of a century ago now.

    The only reason we have an interest in Chagos is the interest in the Diego Garcia base which we have with the Americans.

    If it meets all their concerns, what extra concerns do we have that they don't?
    Are you not concerned about the direction of American politics?
  • The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Which is basically the case.

    The age of the British Empire died the better part of a century ago now.

    The only reason we have an interest in Chagos is the interest in the Diego Garcia base which we have with the Americans.

    If it meets all their concerns, what extra concerns do we have that they don't?
    Are you not concerned about the direction of American politics?
    I am, yes.

    But that doesn't address my question.

    If the future of Diego Garcia is secure, for the UK and USA, then what other concerning matter is there for Chagos?
  • eekeek Posts: 27,671
    edited October 7

    I cannot believe PB isn't celebrating the birthday of one of the greatest singers of all time from the greatest band of all time.

    Huh? Dave Gahan was born on 9 May!
    Brett Anderson was 29th September...

    Yes we could probably play this game all night long and come up with 364 better singers..
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,477

    The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Which is basically the case.

    The age of the British Empire died the better part of a century ago now.

    The only reason we have an interest in Chagos is the interest in the Diego Garcia base which we have with the Americans.

    If it meets all their concerns, what extra concerns do we have that they don't?
    Are you not concerned about the direction of American politics?
    I am, yes.

    But that doesn't address my question.

    If the future of Diego Garcia is secure, for the UK and USA, then what other concerning matter is there for Chagos?
    Keeping it as one the world's largest marine protected areas?

    It contains the world's largest coral atoll and is one of the least spoiled on the planet.

    I fear that will not remain the case.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,739

    The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Which is basically the case.

    The age of the British Empire died the better part of a century ago now.

    The only reason we have an interest in Chagos is the interest in the Diego Garcia base which we have with the Americans.

    If it meets all their concerns, what extra concerns do we have that they don't?
    Are you not concerned about the direction of American politics?
    I am, yes.

    But that doesn't address my question.

    If the future of Diego Garcia is secure, for the UK and USA, then what other concerning matter is there for Chagos?
    Your most well-known policy position is that people should be able to build whatever they want on land that they own. That ought to inform your view of whether it's desirable to give up territory.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,173

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Back in March, a hit-and-run driver seriously injured a 15-year old boy in our village. In June, he was jailed for one year and eleven months. He has already been released, after serving just eleven weeks.

    And is now living in the village, near where the boy and his family live. The boy has still not recovered from the injuries sustained.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wvdmewn71o

    This sort of story, local as it is, does the court and justice system no favours at all.

    Driving at 37mph in a 20mph zone albeit leaving the scene, plus a 5 year driving ban, doesn't seem that far off given the offence. Albeit maybe a bit more for leaving the scene.

    It was of course the Starmer government that let him out early as a non violent offender with a less than 4 year sentence, not the judges
    Torched his own car as well. I can understand 1 year 11 months, serving half for good behaviour. But 11 weeks - less than three months - is far too little given the injuries it has given the kid.
    Did he get time off for being remanded in custody? it does look as if he got more tarrif off than usual.
    No idea. Seems wrong to me though, particularly as it was a hit-and-run and he torched the car afterwards.
    Usual poor journalism that fails to tell us what he was actually convicted of. Was it just failing to stop after an accident?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,035
    .

    The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Which is basically the case.

    The age of the British Empire died the better part of a century ago now.

    The only reason we have an interest in Chagos is the interest in the Diego Garcia base which we have with the Americans.

    If it meets all their concerns, what extra concerns do we have that they don't?
    Also "base we have with the Americans" is something of a polite fiction. It is an American base to all intents and purposes that our assets sometimes use.

    As close allies it is a substantial quid for their quo. Or to put it another way, the Americans don't give us access to nuclear weapon and other technologies for nothing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,110
    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    It's weird. I have a friend, doing fine, old money, few thousand acres blah, blah who, when he was in Shanghai, went specifically to whichever (well-known) knock off market it is to have an exact replica of some kind of smart watch made. It's got a fancy movement so is as accurate as, er, a watch, and costs about £500 to look (exactly) like something that costs about £5,000.

    I do have to ask (but didn't ask him) what was the point.

    The latest Chinese copies are basically a clone of an actual Rolex, complete with a copy of the movement (and packaging!), not a fancy face plate with a quartz watch behind it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCA8ucYWAEw

    It’s almost impossible to tell them apart until you put them next to each other, you could probably fool second-hand watch dealers in many parts of the world.
    Rolex now have a database of serial numbers that you have to use to confirm it's original. If you head off to replica forums you will see people checking literally everything down to 1/2 a mm...
    It sounds a remarkable amount of faff for what's a mere status symbol.
    Rolex have pulled off a great con trick.

    Plus danger of being mugged ? Jeez.
    Don't all luxury brands ultimately come down to a con? They're not really scarce and even if very high quality you could get the same quality for less, but we want the brand.
    Yes. Generally speaking the companies with the highest profit margins are those selling luxury goods, because their brand value means they can charge a large premium over the cost of production.

    The interesting one to look at in that respect is the companies behind skincare products who not only make a huge profit margin, but about half their costs are the advertising that creates their brand value.
    It's not just luxury goods.

    7 out of the top 10 big pharma companies spend more on marketing than on R&D. And by a long way -

    https://www.csrxp.org/icymi-new-study-finds-big-pharma-spent-more-on-sales-and-marketing-than-rd-during-pandemic/

    Johnson and Johnson spending $22bn on marketing vs $12bn on R&D for example. For GSK, the figure is $15bn on marketing vs $7bn on R&D.

    And you wonder why I buy the generic paracetamol...
    Your last bit is sleight of hand, as you’ve changed sales-and-marketing to marketing. One comprises much more than the other, of course.

    It’s always been the case that pharma spends a lot on marketing, of course.
    Who’s going to spend a billion on developing a drug, for which they will have a relatively short period of patent protection, and not market the hell out of it ?

    Every industry in existence spends far more on sales and marketing than they do on R&D.
    But the pharma industry spends a larger part of its revenue on R&D than any other.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,119
    HYUFD said:

    Back in March, a hit-and-run driver seriously injured a 15-year old boy in our village. In June, he was jailed for one year and eleven months. He has already been released, after serving just eleven weeks.

    And is now living in the village, near where the boy and his family live. The boy has still not recovered from the injuries sustained.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wvdmewn71o

    This sort of story, local as it is, does the court and justice system no favours at all.

    Driving at 37mph in a 20mph zone albeit leaving the scene, plus a 5 year driving ban, doesn't seem that far off given the offence. Albeit maybe a bit more for leaving the scene.

    It was of course the Starmer government that let him out early as a non violent offender with a less than 4 year sentence, not the judges
    If he'd come clean at the scene, that would all seems reasonable enough. Locking people up for long periods for being unlucky whilst driving moderately badly is almost certainly counter-productive.
    However, for a hit and run, plus arson, it seems unduly lenient, before Starmer let him out early.
  • The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Which is basically the case.

    The age of the British Empire died the better part of a century ago now.

    The only reason we have an interest in Chagos is the interest in the Diego Garcia base which we have with the Americans.

    If it meets all their concerns, what extra concerns do we have that they don't?
    Are you not concerned about the direction of American politics?
    I am, yes.

    But that doesn't address my question.

    If the future of Diego Garcia is secure, for the UK and USA, then what other concerning matter is there for Chagos?
    Your most well-known policy position is that people should be able to build whatever they want on land that they own. That ought to inform your view of whether it's desirable to give up territory.
    Its not our territory.

    Getting rid of the colonial legacy of Empire I've got absolutely no qualms with. If the Chagossians want to build on their own land, good for them.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,805

    The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Which is basically the case.

    The age of the British Empire died the better part of a century ago now.

    The only reason we have an interest in Chagos is the interest in the Diego Garcia base which we have with the Americans.

    If it meets all their concerns, what extra concerns do we have that they don't?
    Are you not concerned about the direction of American politics?
    I am, yes.

    But that doesn't address my question.

    If the future of Diego Garcia is secure, for the UK and USA, then what other concerning matter is there for Chagos?
    Your most well-known policy position is that people should be able to build whatever they want on land that they own. That ought to inform your view of whether it's desirable to give up territory.
    Its not our territory.

    Getting rid of the colonial legacy of Empire I've got absolutely no qualms with. If the Chagossians want to build on their own land, good for them.
    Final and conclusive proof that you're a cretin. So for that, much thanks
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,805
    edited October 7
    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,572
    theProle said:

    HYUFD said:

    Back in March, a hit-and-run driver seriously injured a 15-year old boy in our village. In June, he was jailed for one year and eleven months. He has already been released, after serving just eleven weeks.

    And is now living in the village, near where the boy and his family live. The boy has still not recovered from the injuries sustained.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wvdmewn71o

    This sort of story, local as it is, does the court and justice system no favours at all.

    Driving at 37mph in a 20mph zone albeit leaving the scene, plus a 5 year driving ban, doesn't seem that far off given the offence. Albeit maybe a bit more for leaving the scene.

    It was of course the Starmer government that let him out early as a non violent offender with a less than 4 year sentence, not the judges
    If he'd come clean at the scene, that would all seems reasonable enough. Locking people up for long periods for being unlucky whilst driving moderately badly is almost certainly counter-productive.
    However, for a hit and run, plus arson, it seems unduly lenient, before Starmer let him out early.
    For being unlucky? Driving at 37mph in a 20mph zone is driving "moderately badly"?

    It was dangerous and reckless and he was lucky that he didn't kill the child he hit.

    He's self-evidently not safe to be in control of a car, but the law will allow him to drive again before the end of the decade. That's absurd.
  • SteveSSteveS Posts: 156

    The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Which is basically the case.

    The age of the British Empire died the better part of a century ago now.

    The only reason we have an interest in Chagos is the interest in the Diego Garcia base which we have with the Americans.

    If it meets all their concerns, what extra concerns do we have that they don't?
    Are you not concerned about the direction of American politics?
    I am, yes.

    But that doesn't address my question.

    If the future of Diego Garcia is secure, for the UK and USA, then what other concerning matter is there for Chagos?
    Your most well-known policy position is that people should be able to build whatever they want on land that they own. That ought to inform your view of whether it's desirable to give up territory.
    Its not our territory.

    Getting rid of the colonial legacy of Empire I've got absolutely no qualms with. If the Chagossians want to build on their own land, good for them.
    Can we call it Chexit?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,572
    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    By asylum seekers, do they literally mean people who are seeking asylum and are still waiting for a decision, or are they including people who were granted refugee status 20 years ago?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,173
    theProle said:

    HYUFD said:

    Back in March, a hit-and-run driver seriously injured a 15-year old boy in our village. In June, he was jailed for one year and eleven months. He has already been released, after serving just eleven weeks.

    And is now living in the village, near where the boy and his family live. The boy has still not recovered from the injuries sustained.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wvdmewn71o

    This sort of story, local as it is, does the court and justice system no favours at all.

    Driving at 37mph in a 20mph zone albeit leaving the scene, plus a 5 year driving ban, doesn't seem that far off given the offence. Albeit maybe a bit more for leaving the scene.

    It was of course the Starmer government that let him out early as a non violent offender with a less than 4 year sentence, not the judges
    If he'd come clean at the scene, that would all seems reasonable enough. Locking people up for long periods for being unlucky whilst driving moderately badly is almost certainly counter-productive.
    However, for a hit and run, plus arson, it seems unduly lenient, before Starmer let him out early.
    The article does not tell us he was convicted of speeding, nor of a driving offence such as causing death by dangerous driving. So I suspect there was no admissibke evidence of the speed he was going, nor that his actions caused the collision, after all the child could have scootered out into his path leaving him no room to stop
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,110

    I cannot believe PB isn't celebrating the birthday of one of the greatest singers of all time from the greatest band of all time.

    Today is Thom Yorke's birthday.

    Today should be a national holiday for the front man of Radiohead.

    We are not worthy.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,326
    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    Here you go:


  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,913

    The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Which is basically the case.

    The age of the British Empire died the better part of a century ago now.

    The only reason we have an interest in Chagos is the interest in the Diego Garcia base which we have with the Americans.

    If it meets all their concerns, what extra concerns do we have that they don't?
    Are you not concerned about the direction of American politics?
    I am, yes.

    But that doesn't address my question.

    If the future of Diego Garcia is secure, for the UK and USA, then what other concerning matter is there for Chagos?
    Keeping it as one the world's largest marine protected areas?

    It contains the world's largest coral atoll and is one of the least spoiled on the planet.

    I fear that will not remain the case.
    The most environmentally damaging thing in the Chagos islands is the US military base, which has a long established adverse environmental impact:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/exclusive-world-s-most-pristine-waters-are-polluted-by-us-navy-human-waste-9193596.html

    It's not just human sewage either, it's coral mining, oil spills etc too.

    https://medium.com/@charles.menzie/environmental-journeys-3-diego-garcia-da91e58eca9f#:~:text=Our studies of Diego Garcia,and was smothering the coral.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,326

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    By asylum seekers, do they literally mean people who are seeking asylum and are still waiting for a decision, or are they including people who were granted refugee status 20 years ago?
    There are 224,700 open asylum cases, so it will clearly be the latter.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,071
    FF43 said:

    The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Of course he was negotiating for the Americans. When has the UK done anything else except follow American instructions on Diego Garcia?

    The assertions on here about Chagos are completely disconnected from reality.
    Assertions all over, I expect. I don't think anyone in the dispute gives two shits about the historic Chagossians or their descendants for example. Not us, not the USA, and not Mauritius. It's a useful place for a military base, and handy for a diplomatic argument about sovereignty, influence, and rent. It's on that basis that I presume a deal has been done.

    The views opposed to the deal at least are less likely to present it is a moral issue, so it is less grating.
  • Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    Only astonishing thing is you take anything "GBNews" claims as "data".

    For the stat to have gone from 0.6% to 1% in 2 years would require over a quarter of a million in that time which doesn't match the data.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,110
    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Sandpit said:

    Barnesian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ouch.

    Biden signs emergency declaration as Hurricane Milton approaches Florida
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4919619-biden-signs-disaster-declaration-florida/
    ...Milton on Monday strengthened into a Category 5 hurricane as it approached Florida, with officials warning of a dangerous storm surge in Tampa Bay and urging certain areas to evacuate.
    The Associated Press reported the storm could make landfall on Wednesday. It is expected to move across Florida toward the Atlantic Ocean, which would mean other states would largely be spared from its impact.
    Milton is arriving in Florida as the Sunshine State, as well as Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, are still recovering from the devastating effects of Hurricane Helene. That stormed killed more than 200 people after hitting the United States a little more than one week ago...

    I wonder whether this will harm the climate change deniers standing in the November election.

    Trump is about 4% ahead in Florida and Scott also 4% ahead for the Senate. Florida lost to GOP is a game changer.

    Whether the Florida hurricane leads more people to vote Dem or Rep, will depend entirely on whether it’s the State or Federal governments seen to be leading the relief efforts.

    The view from the Helene aftermath was not in the Feds’ favour.
    It also depends on whether some GOP supporters change their mind on the dangers of climate change and reject the deniers.
    Preposterous to put down freak weather events down to climate change. That’s little more than blaming angry gods for an earth quake.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene says hurricane is steered by "them".

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-georgia-hurricane-helene-b2623999.html
    This is your frequent friendly reminder that the USA does have a weather army.
    Does it?
    Yes.
    Details, please.
    From Wikipedia:

    U.S. Weather Force

    The United States Weather Force (USWF) is a top-secret, specialized military unit established to leverage advanced climate-control technologies for national defense and strategic military operations. Formed in the late 20th century, the USWF utilizes cutting-edge weather manipulation tools, including space-based lasers, artificial storm generation, and atmospheric disruption devices, to target enemy forces and infrastructure. This elite division, officially part of the U.S. Department of Defense, has been at the forefront of global military dominance through non-conventional warfare methods. While its existence remains shrouded in controversy and secrecy, leaked reports and declassified documents suggest that the USWF's capabilities are unparalleled, able to weaponize natural phenomena such as hurricanes, droughts, and even lightning storms. Critics of the program argue that the militarization of weather poses significant ethical and environmental risks, while supporters maintain that it is a vital tool for maintaining U.S. security in a rapidly evolving global threat landscape.

    In only a few years time it might be almost impossible to fact check that sort of post, thanks to the massive growth in AI generated dreck.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,805

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    By asylum seekers, do they literally mean people who are seeking asylum and are still waiting for a decision, or are they including people who were granted refugee status 20 years ago?
    Surely nearer the latter. Quite amazing it is even close to being true, and a condemnation of our sluggish system AND our lack of control of the borders
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,805
    edited October 7

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    Wouldn't argue with that. They are in the business of clickbaiting: it is TV news as provocation not information. But for it to work, you need a germ of truth. Seems like they have a germ of truth, here

    Before the midwit PB dads get all huffy, remember that both sides do this. The Guardian or the BBC will happily spew out all kinds of garbage, with only a kernel of truth, to show that X or Y is "racist"
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,913

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    Worth noting too that it is not illegal to enter the country to seek asylum.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,950
    edited October 7

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    That 670,000 is near enough the population of Sheffield.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,071

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    That 670,000 is near enough the population of Sheffield.
    That's a heart-rending dilemma. Would we rather have 670k asylum seekers or the people of Sheffield? Thankfully it's above my pay grade.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 27,860

    Cleverly is now fav.

    How can he win amongst the members unless he faces Tugenhadt?

    Surely Jenrick vs Cleverly with the members means Jenrick?

    Isn't it just possibe the members will reflect on their previous disastrous choices and go for the more sensible option this time? Yes, I know these are mostly brain-addled Daily Mail readers, bit even they are capable of learning from mistakes, aren't they?
    It is the MPs who made disastrous choices. Members selected from two poor options. You can argue they chose the worse of the two options, but that's hardly borne out by subsequent events, is it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,950

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    That 670,000 is near enough the population of Sheffield.
    That's a heart-rending dilemma. Would we rather have 670k asylum seekers or the people of Sheffield? Thankfully it's above my pay grade.
    I think the people of Sheffield need to have to make the case why we shouldn't just swap them out - and send them all to Rwanda.

    I mean, a couple of very medioocre football teams. Sean Bean and Dominic West - we'd probably miss Michael Palin more, but face it, he's very old and his best work is behind him. Pulp would be a loss. Arctic Monkeys. But again - what have they done recently?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 5,958
    Some encouragement for Harris supporters in terms of voter demographics and whose more likely to vote .

    Latest polling shows her 18 points ahead in white with a college degree or higher . That puts her 3 points ahead of Biden in 2020 at this stage .

    That demographic is likely to be around 41% of the vote, the highest on record . That group also votes at a higher rate .

    In total Harris is ahead 21 points in all those with a college degree or higher .


  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,257

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    That 670,000 is near enough the population of Sheffield.
    That's a heart-rending dilemma. Would we rather have 670k asylum seekers or the people of Sheffield? Thankfully it's above my pay grade.
    I think the people of Sheffield need to have to make the case why we shouldn't just swap them out - and send them all to Rwanda.

    I mean, a couple of very medioocre football teams. Sean Bean and Dominic West - we'd probably miss Michael Palin more, but face it, he's very old and his best work is behind him. Pulp would be a loss. Arctic Monkeys.
    Human League
    ABC
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,805
    LESBIAN WORZEL GUMMIDGE

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,035
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Of course he was negotiating for the Americans. When has the UK done anything else except follow American instructions on Diego Garcia?

    The assertions on here about Chagos are completely disconnected from reality.
    Assertions all over, I expect. I don't think anyone in the dispute gives two shits about the historic Chagossians or their descendants for example. Not us, not the USA, and not Mauritius. It's a useful place for a military base, and handy for a diplomatic argument about sovereignty, influence, and rent. It's on that basis that I presume a deal has been done.

    The views opposed to the deal at least are less likely to present it is a moral issue, so it is less grating.
    That's the size of it, I think. The Americans see their base secured for the foreseeable future. And the international law issues (which are significant) are resolved. Mauritius gets nominal sovereignty and a useful rent. In theory they can populate the islands but are not going to. No-one cares about the Chagossians but at least they are no worse off. China won't build a base in the islands, not just because it would break the treaty agreed to by Mauritius. The Americans won't allow it and they have heft.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,805
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    Wouldn't argue with that. They are in the business of clickbaiting: it is TV news as provocation not information. But for it to work, you need a germ of truth. Seems like they have a germ of truth, here

    Before the midwit PB dads get all huffy, remember that both sides do this. The Guardian or the BBC will happily spew out all kinds of garbage, with only a kernel of truth, to show that X or Y is "racist"
    I mean, what sad fuck flagged this. Desperate times
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,690

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    That 670,000 is near enough the population of Sheffield.
    That's a heart-rending dilemma. Would we rather have 670k asylum seekers or the people of Sheffield? Thankfully it's above my pay grade.
    Before or after the events depicted in Threads?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,950

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    That 670,000 is near enough the population of Sheffield.
    That's a heart-rending dilemma. Would we rather have 670k asylum seekers or the people of Sheffield? Thankfully it's above my pay grade.
    I think the people of Sheffield need to have to make the case why we shouldn't just swap them out - and send them all to Rwanda.

    I mean, a couple of very medioocre football teams. Sean Bean and Dominic West - we'd probably miss Michael Palin more, but face it, he's very old and his best work is behind him. Pulp would be a loss. Arctic Monkeys.
    Human League
    ABC
    So no great loss. Versus who knows what musicians or actors we might get from importing 670,000.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,694

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    That 670,000 is near enough the population of Sheffield.
    That's a heart-rending dilemma. Would we rather have 670k asylum seekers or the people of Sheffield? Thankfully it's above my pay grade.
    I think the people of Sheffield need to have to make the case why we shouldn't just swap them out - and send them all to Rwanda.

    I mean, a couple of very medioocre football teams. Sean Bean and Dominic West - we'd probably miss Michael Palin more, but face it, he's very old and his best work is behind him. Pulp would be a loss. Arctic Monkeys.
    Human League
    ABC
    So no great loss. Versus who knows what musicians or actors we might get from importing 670,000.
    Yeh, but then again there is Cabaret Voltaire.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,651
    nico679 said:

    Some encouragement for Harris supporters in terms of voter demographics and whose more likely to vote .

    Latest polling shows her 18 points ahead in white with a college degree or higher . That puts her 3 points ahead of Biden in 2020 at this stage .

    That demographic is likely to be around 41% of the vote, the highest on record . That group also votes at a higher rate .

    In total Harris is ahead 21 points in all those with a college degree or higher .


    And women are more likely to vote, and there are more of them
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,239

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    That 670,000 is near enough the population of Sheffield.
    That's a heart-rending dilemma. Would we rather have 670k asylum seekers or the people of Sheffield? Thankfully it's above my pay grade.
    I saw a remarkable stat last week about Lebanon, in the context of the Hezbollah-Israel war.

    It’s estimated that Lebanon houses around 1.5 million Syrian refugees. Out of a total population of 5.5 million. Nevermind 1% or 0.6%, that’s 27%. No wonder the country is struggling.

    We should be paying wads and wads of cash to Lebanon for doing the Middle East and the world this service.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,228

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    That 670,000 is near enough the population of Sheffield.
    That's a heart-rending dilemma. Would we rather have 670k asylum seekers or the people of Sheffield? Thankfully it's above my pay grade.
    I think the people of Sheffield need to have to make the case why we shouldn't just swap them out - and send them all to Rwanda.

    I mean, a couple of very medioocre football teams. Sean Bean and Dominic West - we'd probably miss Michael Palin more, but face it, he's very old and his best work is behind him. Pulp would be a loss. Arctic Monkeys. But again - what have they done recently?
    Erm... isn't TSE from Sheffield?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,694
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    Wouldn't argue with that. They are in the business of clickbaiting: it is TV news as provocation not information. But for it to work, you need a germ of truth. Seems like they have a germ of truth, here

    Before the midwit PB dads get all huffy, remember that both sides do this. The Guardian or the BBC will happily spew out all kinds of garbage, with only a kernel of truth, to show that X or Y is "racist"
    I mean, what sad fuck flagged this. Desperate times
    I see we are no longer the cozy, semi-dozing pub we were this afternoon.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 27,860
    edited October 7
    ...
    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Of course he was negotiating for the Americans. When has the UK done anything else except follow American instructions on Diego Garcia?

    The assertions on here about Chagos are completely disconnected from reality.
    Assertions all over, I expect. I don't think anyone in the dispute gives two shits about the historic Chagossians or their descendants for example. Not us, not the USA, and not Mauritius. It's a useful place for a military base, and handy for a diplomatic argument about sovereignty, influence, and rent. It's on that basis that I presume a deal has been done.

    The views opposed to the deal at least are less likely to present it is a moral issue, so it is less grating.
    That's the size of it, I think. The Americans see their base secured for the foreseeable future. And the international law issues (which are significant) are resolved. Mauritius gets nominal sovereignty and a useful rent. In theory they can populate the islands but are not going to. No-one cares about the Chagossians but at least they are no worse off. China won't build a base in the islands, not just because it would break the treaty agreed to by Mauritius. The Americans won't allow it and they have heft.
    And it is the Americans should pay for it. It's an intriguing social study how utterly dickless PB commentors have got that they have no objection to our taxpayers (ie you and me) being forced to pay 99 years of rent for an astronomically richer country to have the use of a strategic military asset. We just politely grin through it like someone has just farted at the vicarage tea party. No other country is like this. IRELAND wouldn't take this sort of shit and they don't have an army to speak of. Monaco probably has bigger balls in the face of Uncle Sam than we do.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,239
    As a teenager I was obsessed by remote islands. I used to stand staring at the world map and wonder what people were doing now in Muckle Flugga, or Baffin Island, or Cape Verde (back then untouristed), but the most fascinating was the Indian Ocean. The Andamans, the Laccadives, and the Chagos archipelago.

    Never realised back then there was a fuck off great big American airbase on them.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,568
    edited October 7
    The BBC are repeating the dodgy story of the guy with learning difficulties again....
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr54z4q11qvo

    Unforgivable: BBC deliberately deceives with dog attack story
    https://david-collier.com/unforgivable-bbc-deliberately-skewed-the-dog-attack-story/
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,035

    ...

    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Of course he was negotiating for the Americans. When has the UK done anything else except follow American instructions on Diego Garcia?

    The assertions on here about Chagos are completely disconnected from reality.
    Assertions all over, I expect. I don't think anyone in the dispute gives two shits about the historic Chagossians or their descendants for example. Not us, not the USA, and not Mauritius. It's a useful place for a military base, and handy for a diplomatic argument about sovereignty, influence, and rent. It's on that basis that I presume a deal has been done.

    The views opposed to the deal at least are less likely to present it is a moral issue, so it is less grating.
    That's the size of it, I think. The Americans see their base secured for the foreseeable future. And the international law issues (which are significant) are resolved. Mauritius gets nominal sovereignty and a useful rent. In theory they can populate the islands but are not going to. No-one cares about the Chagossians but at least they are no worse off. China won't build a base in the islands, not just because it would break the treaty agreed to by Mauritius. The Americans won't allow it and they have heft.
    And it is the Americans should pay for it. It's an intriguing social study how utterly dickless PB commentors have got that they have no objection to our taxpayers (ie you and me) being forced to pay 99 years of rent for an astronomically richer country to have the use of a strategic military asset. We just politely grin through it like someone has just farted at the vicarage tea party. No other country is like this. IRELAND wouldn't take this sort of shit and they don't have an army to speak of. Monaco probably has bigger balls in the face of Uncle Sam than we do.
    The USA are our close allies, with all that entails. We won't be arguing with them while they have the key to our nuclear deterrent etc etc etc.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,338
    edited October 7
    nico679 said:

    Some encouragement for Harris supporters in terms of voter demographics and whose more likely to vote .

    Latest polling shows her 18 points ahead in white with a college degree or higher . That puts her 3 points ahead of Biden in 2020 at this stage .

    That demographic is likely to be around 41% of the vote, the highest on record . That group also votes at a higher rate .

    In total Harris is ahead 21 points in all those with a college degree or higher .


    Suggests she could gain NC which has lots of college graduates to offset any losses in the more white working class rustbelt and Arizona.

    The Atlanta and Philadelphia suburbs at least also have plenty of college graduates
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,805
    Rumours abound

    I fear this may be the Starmerdammerung
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,338
    Mel Stride endorses his fellow Rishi loyalist James Cleverly in tomorrow's Telegraph
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/07/mel-stride-backing-james-cleverly-conservative-leadership/
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,568
    Putin’s ‘Merchant of Death’ Is Back in the Arms Business. This Time Selling to the Houthis.

    https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/putins-merchant-of-death-is-back-in-the-arms-business-this-time-selling-to-the-houthis-10b7f521?mod=hp_lead_pos1

    Remember the US traded him for the release of female basketball player who had broken Russian law.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,239
    NOAA recon flight just logged 898hpa in hurricane Milton.

    It was a tropical storm only 24 hours ago. Mental.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,550
    "‘If I have a fault, it’s that I’m too honest’ – Boris Johnson’s Unleashed, digested by John Crace"

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/oct/07/boris-johnson-unleashed-memoir-digested-read-john-crace
  • SteveSSteveS Posts: 156

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    That 670,000 is near enough the population of Sheffield.
    That's a heart-rending dilemma. Would we rather have 670k asylum seekers or the people of Sheffield? Thankfully it's above my pay grade.
    I think the people of Sheffield need to have to make the case why we shouldn't just swap them out - and send them all to Rwanda.

    I mean, a couple of very medioocre football teams. Sean Bean and Dominic West - we'd probably miss Michael Palin more, but face it, he's very old and his best work is behind him. Pulp would be a loss. Arctic Monkeys.
    Human League
    ABC
    So no great loss. Versus who knows what musicians or actors we might get from importing 670,000.
    Yeh, but then again there is Cabaret Voltaire.
    And Clock DVA…
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,694
    Jonathan Coe is apparently going to Penarth as part of a book tour.

    First time I have heard the place mentioned since the plague hit us in 2020.


    https://x.com/jonathancoe/status/1843307572721532935
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,477
    TimS said:

    NOAA recon flight just logged 898hpa in hurricane Milton.

    It was a tropical storm only 24 hours ago. Mental.

    'Tis very small (until the eyewall replacements start). Almost like a very big tornado. Less to spin up...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,568
    Leon said:

    Rumours abound

    I fear this may be the Starmerdammerung

    On twitter, or among journalists at Flint Knappers Weekly?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,394
    IanB2 said:

    nico679 said:

    Some encouragement for Harris supporters in terms of voter demographics and whose more likely to vote .

    Latest polling shows her 18 points ahead in white with a college degree or higher . That puts her 3 points ahead of Biden in 2020 at this stage .

    That demographic is likely to be around 41% of the vote, the highest on record . That group also votes at a higher rate .

    In total Harris is ahead 21 points in all those with a college degree or higher .


    And women are more likely to vote, and there are more of them
    Estimating turnout by demographic is key. It's not clear how the pollsters do that. Simply asking people how likely they are to vote is not very accurate. People feel pressured to say they'll vote when they won't.

    The difference between graduate turnout and non graduate turnout is massive, and Kamala is gaining over Trump with graduates. White graduates made up 24% of eligible voters but 33% of actual voters.

    Kamala also has an advantage with women but I can't find any estimate of differential turnout by sex.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,066
    TimS said:

    NOAA recon flight just logged 898hpa in hurricane Milton.

    It was a tropical storm only 24 hours ago. Mental.

    I don't understand any of the charts, data or models but the people who do are freaking out on social media.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,805
    TimS said:

    As a teenager I was obsessed by remote islands. I used to stand staring at the world map and wonder what people were doing now in Muckle Flugga, or Baffin Island, or Cape Verde (back then untouristed), but the most fascinating was the Indian Ocean. The Andamans, the Laccadives, and the Chagos archipelago.

    Never realised back then there was a fuck off great big American airbase on them.

    I’m STILL obsessed by remote islands. I think it is a hallmark of the born traveler. The hunger to know what they are like

    Kerguelen? Clipperton? Pitcairn? The Summerisles?

    That island where I fucked REDACTED over an altar? Herm? Lundy? Stromboli? The Iles des Saintes?

    Generally, they repay visiting. eg Easter Island is absolutely extraordinary, and worth all the hassle
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,239
    Eabhal said:

    TimS said:

    NOAA recon flight just logged 898hpa in hurricane Milton.

    It was a tropical storm only 24 hours ago. Mental.

    I don't understand any of the charts, data or models but the people who do are freaking out on social media.
    It’s really quite something. As Flatlander says, more like a giant tornado than a normal hurricane.

    Meanwhile in Brockley I arrived at the station to be greeted by a torrential downpour and have decided to wait it out given my lack of umbrella and the too-late hour to call for a lift. 20 minutes and counting while I watch the radar.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,477
    Eabhal said:

    TimS said:

    NOAA recon flight just logged 898hpa in hurricane Milton.

    It was a tropical storm only 24 hours ago. Mental.

    I don't understand any of the charts, data or models but the people who do are freaking out on social media.
    It is certainly freaky.

    It doesn't look like it will survive at anything like this strength on the way to Florida (although sometimes intense storms can modify their environment to some degree) but I doubt more rain will be welcome.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,239
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    As a teenager I was obsessed by remote islands. I used to stand staring at the world map and wonder what people were doing now in Muckle Flugga, or Baffin Island, or Cape Verde (back then untouristed), but the most fascinating was the Indian Ocean. The Andamans, the Laccadives, and the Chagos archipelago.

    Never realised back then there was a fuck off great big American airbase on them.

    I’m STILL obsessed by remote islands. I think it is a hallmark of the born traveler. The hunger to know what they are like

    Kerguelen? Clipperton? Pitcairn? The Summerisles?

    That island where I fucked REDACTED over an altar? Herm? Lundy? Stromboli? The Iles des Saintes?

    Generally, they repay visiting. eg Easter Island is absolutely extraordinary, and worth all the hassle
    My major birthdays have involved Atlantic islands. It’s a bit of a tradition now. Last two were Iceland and the Azores - the latter a big old stone house right in the middle of Sete Cidades. Next one, where? It’s between Fogo on Cape Verde and El Hierro, I think. In due course (for a later birthday) Sao Tome & Principe, then maybe the Falklands.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,694
    edited October 7
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    As a teenager I was obsessed by remote islands. I used to stand staring at the world map and wonder what people were doing now in Muckle Flugga, or Baffin Island, or Cape Verde (back then untouristed), but the most fascinating was the Indian Ocean. The Andamans, the Laccadives, and the Chagos archipelago.

    Never realised back then there was a fuck off great big American airbase on them.

    I’m STILL obsessed by remote islands. I think it is a hallmark of the born traveler. The hunger to know what they are like

    Kerguelen? Clipperton? Pitcairn? The Summerisles?

    That island where I fucked REDACTED over an altar? Herm? Lundy? Stromboli? The Iles des Saintes?

    Generally, they repay visiting. eg Easter Island is absolutely extraordinary, and worth all the hassle
    I once sailed around the Summer Isles in a little boat. The captain was dolling out whisky as it was a cold day.

    Indeed, it was dreich.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,694

    Leon said:

    Rumours abound

    I fear this may be the Starmerdammerung

    On twitter, or among journalists at Flint Knappers Weekly?
    I hear the editor is a bit of a gossip.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,239

    Eabhal said:

    TimS said:

    NOAA recon flight just logged 898hpa in hurricane Milton.

    It was a tropical storm only 24 hours ago. Mental.

    I don't understand any of the charts, data or models but the people who do are freaking out on social media.
    It is certainly freaky.

    It doesn't look like it will survive at anything like this strength on the way to Florida (although sometimes intense storms can modify their environment to some degree) but I doubt more rain will be welcome.
    Looks like it’ll be ripped apart by shear on its way in but could still cause a record storm surge.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,950
    edited October 7
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    As a teenager I was obsessed by remote islands. I used to stand staring at the world map and wonder what people were doing now in Muckle Flugga, or Baffin Island, or Cape Verde (back then untouristed), but the most fascinating was the Indian Ocean. The Andamans, the Laccadives, and the Chagos archipelago.

    Never realised back then there was a fuck off great big American airbase on them.

    I’m STILL obsessed by remote islands. I think it is a hallmark of the born traveler. The hunger to know what they are like

    Kerguelen? Clipperton? Pitcairn? The Summerisles?

    That island where I fucked REDACTED over an altar? Herm? Lundy? Stromboli? The Iles des Saintes?

    Generally, they repay visiting. eg Easter Island is absolutely extraordinary, and worth all the hassle
    South Georgia. Enderby Island. Gough Island with 7m pairs of breeding Seabirds. Inaccessible Island. The Galapagos. St. Helena. The extraordinary endemic plants of Campbell Island. The Chatham Islands with their informal time zone 45 minutes ahead of New Zealand - and most of their men called Bruce. Robben Island. Macquarie Island with its history of violence amongst the whalers. The Prince's Islands off Istanbul. The Thousand Islands, Jakarta Bay. Ring of Brodgar standing stones, Orkney. Bioko Island (Fernando Po as was).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,805

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    As a teenager I was obsessed by remote islands. I used to stand staring at the world map and wonder what people were doing now in Muckle Flugga, or Baffin Island, or Cape Verde (back then untouristed), but the most fascinating was the Indian Ocean. The Andamans, the Laccadives, and the Chagos archipelago.

    Never realised back then there was a fuck off great big American airbase on them.

    I’m STILL obsessed by remote islands. I think it is a hallmark of the born traveler. The hunger to know what they are like

    Kerguelen? Clipperton? Pitcairn? The Summerisles?

    That island where I fucked REDACTED over an altar? Herm? Lundy? Stromboli? The Iles des Saintes?

    Generally, they repay visiting. eg Easter Island is absolutely extraordinary, and worth all the hassle
    South Georgia. Enderby Island. Gough Island with 7m pairs of breeding Seabirds. Inaccessible Island. The Galapagos. St. Helena. The extraordinary endemic plants of Campbell Island. The Chatham Islands with their informal time zone 45 minutes ahead of New Zealand - and most of their men called Bruce. Robben Island. Macquarie Island with its history of violence amongst the whalers. The Prince's Islands off Istanbul. The Thousand Islands, Jakarta Bay. Ring of Brodgar standing stones, Orkney.
    OOOOOH that’s better than sex
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,279

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    That 670,000 is near enough the population of Sheffield.
    That's a heart-rending dilemma. Would we rather have 670k asylum seekers or the people of Sheffield? Thankfully it's above my pay grade.
    I think the people of Sheffield need to have to make the case why we shouldn't just swap them out - and send them all to Rwanda.

    I mean, a couple of very medioocre football teams. Sean Bean and Dominic West - we'd probably miss Michael Palin more, but face it, he's very old and his best work is behind him. Pulp would be a loss. Arctic Monkeys.
    Human League
    ABC
    So no great loss. Versus who knows what musicians or actors we might get from importing 670,000.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Root
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,550
    edited October 7
    The 53 Tory MPs who haven't declared for any candidate as yet.

    Anderson, Stuart / Andrew, Stuart / Baldwin, Harriett / Barclay, Steve / Bhatti, Saqib
    Blackman, Bob / Brandreth, Aphra / Braverman, Suella / Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey / Costa, Alberto
    Cox, Geoffrey / Dinenage, Caroline / Dowden, Oliver / Duncan Smith, Iain / Evans, Luke
    French, Louie / Fuller, Richard / Gale, Roger / Garnier, Mark / Ghani, Nus
    Glen, John / Griffiths, Alison / Harris, Rebecca / Hinds, Damian / Holden, Richard
    Holmes, Paul / Hudson, Neil / Hunt, Jeremy / Jenkin, Bernard / Jopp, Lincoln
    Lewis, Julian / Malthouse, Kit / Mayhew, Jerome / Moore, Robbie / Morrissey, Joy
    Morton, Wendy / Mundell, David / Murrison, Andrew / Nokes, Caroline / Patel, Priti
    Paul, Rebecca / Robertson, Joe / Simmonds, David / Smith, Julian / Smith, Rebecca
    Stafford, Greg / Stuart, Graham / Sunak, Rishi / Vickers, Martin / Whittingdale, John
    Williamson, Gavin / Wood, Mike / Wright, Jeremy
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,739
    Andy_JS said:

    The 53 Tory MPs who haven't declared for any candidate as yet.

    Anderson, Stuart / Andrew, Stuart / Baldwin, Harriett / Barclay, Steve / Bhatti, Saqib
    Blackman, Bob / Brandreth, Aphra / Braverman, Suella / Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey / Costa, Alberto
    Cox, Geoffrey / Dinenage, Caroline / Dowden, Oliver / Duncan Smith, Iain / Evans, Luke
    French, Louie / Fuller, Richard / Gale, Roger / Garnier, Mark / Ghani, Nus
    Glen, John / Griffiths, Alison / Harris, Rebecca / Hinds, Damian / Holden, Richard
    Holmes, Paul / Hudson, Neil / Hunt, Jeremy / Jenkin, Bernard / Jopp, Lincoln
    Lewis, Julian / Malthouse, Kit / Mayhew, Jerome / Moore, Robbie / Morrissey, Joy
    Morton, Wendy / Mundell, David / Murrison, Andrew / Nokes, Caroline / Patel, Priti
    Paul, Rebecca / Robertson, Joe / Simmonds, David / Smith, Julian / Smith, Rebecca
    Stafford, Greg / Stuart, Graham / Sunak, Rishi / Vickers, Martin / Whittingdale, John
    Williamson, Gavin / Wood, Mike / Wright, Jeremy

    We've had the Ron DeSantis endorsement. Have Little Marco or Lyin' Ted declared for anyone yet?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,190
    edited October 7
    Leon said:

    The Summerisles?

    The Lord Summerisle is a bit intense. Knows a lot of folklore. "...Sumer is icumen in, lhude sing cuckoo..."

  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,477
    edited October 7
    viewcode said:

    Leon said:

    The Summerisles?

    The Lord Summerisle is a bit intense. Knows a lot of folklore. "...Sumer is icumen in, lhude sing cuckoo..."

    The largest of the Summer Isles is having some kind of luxury destination built. Not sure what to make of that.

    Another is up for sale (along with a house opposite if you want it):
    https://www.galbraithgroup.com/media/x3mbilh3/ebrochure-mullagrach-house-island.pdf

    £500k for a shed and an island without a sandy beach seems a bit steep, although it would make a nice habitat restoration project.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,550
    "Sue Gray sacking won’t fix ‘systemic’ No 10 issues, officials warn

    The removal of Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff will do little to assuage doubts over his leadership and the government’s effectiveness after months of scandal"

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/sue-gray-sacking-will-not-fix-systemic-no-10-issues-officials-warn-ll9mdmbqt
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,898

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    It's weird. I have a friend, doing fine, old money, few thousand acres blah, blah who, when he was in Shanghai, went specifically to whichever (well-known) knock off market it is to have an exact replica of some kind of smart watch made. It's got a fancy movement so is as accurate as, er, a watch, and costs about £500 to look (exactly) like something that costs about £5,000.

    I do have to ask (but didn't ask him) what was the point.

    The latest Chinese copies are basically a clone of an actual Rolex, complete with a copy of the movement (and packaging!), not a fancy face plate with a quartz watch behind it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCA8ucYWAEw

    It’s almost impossible to tell them apart until you put them next to each other, you could probably fool second-hand watch dealers in many parts of the world.
    Rolex now have a database of serial numbers that you have to use to confirm it's original. If you head off to replica forums you will see people checking literally everything down to 1/2 a mm...
    It sounds a remarkable amount of faff for what's a mere status symbol.
    Rolex have pulled off a great con trick.

    Plus danger of being mugged ? Jeez.
    Don't all luxury brands ultimately come down to a con? They're not really scarce and even if very high quality you could get the same quality for less, but we want the brand.
    Yes. Generally speaking the companies with the highest profit margins are those selling luxury goods, because their brand value means they can charge a large premium over the cost of production.

    The interesting one to look at in that respect is the companies behind skincare products
    who not only make a huge profit margin, but about half their costs are the advertising that creates their brand value.
    My industry makes 60%+ profit contribution margins.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,898

    HYUFD said:

    Cleverly is now fav.

    How can he win amongst the members unless he faces Tugenhadt?

    Surely Jenrick vs Cleverly with the members means Jenrick?

    Isn't it just possibe the members will reflect on their previous disastrous choices and go for the more sensible option this time? Yes, I know these are mostly brain-addled Daily Mail readers, bit even they are capable of learning from mistakes, aren't they?
    Tory members have never voted for a general election loser, since 2001 they have picked IDS, Cameron, Johnson and Truss none of whom lost a general election.

    It was Tory MPs alone who picked Hague, Howard, May and Sunak
    IDS and Truss didn't fight a GE

    What on earth are you talking about
    I believe the word is "causistry".
    Sophistry, surely?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,898
    Leon said:

    The more one looks at the Chagos Deal, the worse it gets

    Jonathan Powell's explanation boils down to: "Well OK it's shit but it was the Tories' idea"

    If that is the best the negotiator can do, then it is disastrous. It surely dooms Cleverly

    It’a a bollocks argument

    The government is the government

    Cleverly starting discussions is not proof that he would have agreed this deal
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,898

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    Only astonishing thing is you take anything "GBNews" claims as "data".

    For the stat to have gone from 0.6% to 1% in 2 years would require over a quarter of a million in that time which doesn't match the data.
    0.6% > 0.65% (made up number) rounded to 1%…
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,898

    ...

    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    The clip of Jonathan Powell defending the Chagos deal is quite extraordinary. He boasts about meeting all of the American’s red lines as if he were negotiating for them and not us.

    https://x.com/timesradio/status/1842123550066430273

    Of course he was negotiating for the Americans. When has the UK done anything else except follow American instructions on Diego Garcia?

    The assertions on here about Chagos are completely disconnected from reality.
    Assertions all over, I expect. I don't think anyone in the dispute gives two shits about the historic Chagossians or their descendants for example. Not us, not the USA, and not Mauritius. It's a useful place for a military base, and handy for a diplomatic argument about sovereignty, influence, and rent. It's on that basis that I presume a deal has been done.

    The views opposed to the deal at least are less likely to present it is a moral issue, so it is less grating.
    That's the size of it, I think. The Americans see their base secured for the foreseeable future. And the international law issues (which are significant) are resolved. Mauritius gets nominal sovereignty and a useful rent. In theory they can populate the islands but are not going to. No-one cares about the Chagossians but at least they are no worse off. China won't build a base in the islands, not just because it would break the treaty agreed to by Mauritius. The Americans won't allow it and they have heft.
    And it is the Americans should pay for it. It's an intriguing social study how utterly dickless PB commentors have got that they have no objection to our taxpayers (ie you and me) being forced to pay 99 years of rent for an astronomically richer country to have the use of a strategic military asset. We just politely grin through it like someone has just farted at the vicarage tea party. No other country is like this. IRELAND wouldn't take this sort of shit and they don't have an
    army to speak of. Monaco probably has bigger balls in the face of Uncle Sam than we do.
    America pays rent to the UK - they sub lease it from us.

    If Mauritius and the US had the direct relationship there would be no role for us.

    You may think that would be a good thing but it’s a policy decision not a self evident truth
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,550
    According to this research, 68% of British people think anyone should be allowed to migrate to the UK provided there are jobs available for them.

    https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/uk-attitudes-to-immigration-among-most-positive-internationally-1018742-pub01-115
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,110
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    GBNews is claiming that 1% of the British population is now asylum seekers

    I find that hard to believe but a recent and reliable stat from 2022 says 0.6%.... so maybe it is true now - or true enough

    Really astonishing data

    That would be around 670,000 people. I think it depends a lot on what you count as an asylum seeker. As most of us would understand it I think that is a long way out. But it depends on whether they are including the 250,000 Ukrainians currently here. They are not in the asylum system. Same goes for the 144,000 former inhabitants of Hong Kong who have settled here. Does it include the remaining Indians who came here from Uganda in the 1970s?

    I think the real point is that GB News are using an emotionally and politically charged term - asylum seeker - which has a specific imagery in the minds of many but that imagery is rather remoived from reality.
    That 670,000 is near enough the population of Sheffield.
    That's a heart-rending dilemma. Would we rather have 670k asylum seekers or the people of Sheffield? Thankfully it's above my pay grade.
    I saw a remarkable stat last week about Lebanon, in the context of the Hezbollah-Israel war.

    It’s estimated that Lebanon houses around 1.5 million Syrian refugees. Out of a total population of 5.5 million. Nevermind 1% or 0.6%, that’s 27%. No wonder the country is struggling.

    We should be paying wads and wads of cash to Lebanon for doing the Middle East and the world this service.
    Yes, the long term consequences of the Iraq invasion - which created ISIS - have been disastrous for the region.

    And now Lebanon has another million internal refugees thanks to the Israeli bombing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,110
    edited 3:22AM
    Andy_JS said:

    "Sue Gray sacking won’t fix ‘systemic’ No 10 issues, officials warn

    The removal of Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff will do little to assuage doubts over his leadership and the government’s effectiveness after months of scandal"

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/sue-gray-sacking-will-not-fix-systemic-no-10-issues-officials-warn-ll9mdmbqt

    Of course it won't.
    Get policy right, and presentation doesn't really matter.
    Get it badly wrong, and presentation definitely doesn't matter.

    Unless you're going Trump style politics - but even then it will only take you so far.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,110
    Eabhal said:

    TimS said:

    NOAA recon flight just logged 898hpa in hurricane Milton.

    It was a tropical storm only 24 hours ago. Mental.

    I don't understand any of the charts, data or models but the people who do are freaking out on social media.
    One US meteorologist reportedly almost broke down on air.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,568
    SNL can still do funny occasionally...

    https://x.com/mattturck/status/1842698452817543441
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,110
    Voters in swing states say they lean with Democrats much more on abortion, the economy, inflation, and healthcare
    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1843417929141961080

    (Redfield & Wilton 18.8k polled)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,659

    The BBC are repeating the dodgy story of the guy with learning difficulties again....
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr54z4q11qvo

    Unforgivable: BBC deliberately deceives with dog attack story
    https://david-collier.com/unforgivable-bbc-deliberately-skewed-the-dog-attack-story/

    The accusations in that dog attack link are quite something.

    One thin that intrigues me about the BBC is statements and the like. Sometimes they link to the whole thing, sometime they do not, and only partially quote. If it is a statement to a news organisation, I would think the person giving the statement has given permission for the whole thing to be broadcast.

    But it does sound as if the BBC are being utterly played by terrorists.
Sign In or Register to comment.