Data from Bradford suggests the drawbacks are more extensive than thought.
An interesting read. I wasn't actually aware that Queen Victoria and Albert were first cousins.
It does raise intersting issues. Should our government also ban first cousing marriages, as Norway does and Sweden intends? Or is this a step too far in government interference in people's lives? I'd tend towards the former, but am unsure.
£50,000 up front payment to the NHS if you really want to go ahead with it.
And the same if (eg) you want to start smoking. We'll soon balance the books with that model.
Isn't that effectively what happens (and more when you consider social health savings when smokers die relatively early)?
I don't know how the overall net ledger works out. Poor health cost to the economy and the NHS vs Taxes received from the activity + earlier death so less late life health burden.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
They could do that, but they wouldn’t as it wouldn’t be value maximising - it would undermine all sales in other markets.
But don’t you think there is a fundamental problem in society where privately owned company are more powerful than governments?
Apple did it to Russia in 2022. Apple seems to have survived this near-total withdrawal from the Russian market
Of course this is an extreme example, but I am testing an extreme hypothesis, showing that the tech giants will cut off entire markets if suitably provoked. But of course it would never get that far, voter pressure on the UK government (which Putin does not have to worry about) would mean London would seek a compromise with Cupertino, probably quite a humiliating compromise for a sovereign nation cowed by a mere corporation
I am going to assume you are trolling.
The withdrawal from Russia following international sanctions and the invasion of a neighbouring democratic country is not comparable to a voluntary decision to terminate delivery of a service to customers in a mature western country.
The problem is the walled garden - if Apple stops serving the UK then all those poor fools who spent £1,500 on an apple phone (ahem, @TheScreamingEagles) will have a useless hunk of junk.
That will be used very effectively by their competitors in other markets. May be they would only lose 10-20% of their customers. But that’s a lot of money
I'm an innocent in these matters and hesitate to butt in, but don't all the other US tech giants use encryption too? Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft etc? Why is Apple particularly exposed to Starmer's machinations?
The issue is end-to-end-encryption
That is, Apple themselves cannot access your data.
This is the gold standard for privacy and security.
Other companies, that use E2E encryption may well follow Apple. Signal (A better version of WhatsApp) almost certainly will
The government passed a law demanding a backdoor. It also demanded that compliance with the law be secret. We only learned of Apple’s refusal via a leak in the US.
Funny thing is that American telecomms companies have been subject to similar laws – for backdoors with secret compliance (like superinjunctions, I guess) – for decades. I've seen one American CEO sit in silence when asked at a shareholders' meeting because it would have been illegal for him to confirm, deny or even acknowledge the possibility. As someone (you?) noted above, this led to infestation by Russian and Chinese spies.
That’s one reason for Apple’s stance on this.
The Greek telephone system hack should have been a wake up call.
NB. the Establishment plan is to shuffle in thicko Cleverley when Kemi blows. 'We thought we had the Black Thatcher, she turned out to be the Black Truss, but now we got the Black Boris, ta-da!'
So we should lay Cleverly for London Mayor, which was his previously-mooted objective?
PS if you want to call the man a thicko, at least spell his name right because otherwise it looks like, well, you get the picture.
The Fukkers have turned Stupidly's constiuency into an almost marginal. He could get unhorsed at the next GE which wouldn't be ideal if he were leader.
Given Cleverly opposed the cuts to overseas aid to fund defence, a position that puts him left of Starmer let alone Farage, the idea Tory MPs would move him from third to first is for the birds, let alone that Tory members would vote for him.
As I said before he is going for London Mayor, where his more Cameroon/LD positioning will better place him
Well, perhaps, and I think London politics could get more interesting in the next couple of years. Recent by election results haven't been good for Labour but the locals aren't until 2026 and that's an eternity away.
The other big question is what will Sadiq Khan do? IF he decides not to run again and goes for a London constituency (East Ham perhaps on the retirement of Stephen Timms?), Labour will have to find a new candidate and while that may help offset the anti-Sadiq vote, it will still be interesting to see who might be in the runners and riders (Newham Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz?).
The Conservatives will be hoping to avoid the disaster of the last primary - might ex-MP Paul Scully be tempted to have another go?
That's even before we consider other parties and the fact the Mayoral election isn't until 2028 which might conceivably be General Election day.
Wildly O/t..... probably. This has turned up in my inbox.
You have been selected to join the great Illuminati to be a member of this family; You have found favor in the eyes of the Great Creator and hence this noble invitation to be a member of the Elite Family.
Wildly O/t..... probably. This has turned up in my inbox.
You have been selected to join the great Illuminati to be a member of this family; You have found favor in the eyes of the Great Creator and hence this noble invitation to be a member of the Elite Family.
Wildly O/t..... probably. This has turned up in my inbox.
You have been selected to join the great Illuminati to be a member of this family; You have found favor in the eyes of the Great Creator and hence this noble invitation to be a member of the Elite Family.
Well talk about your lucky day.
You never know. I wonder if HYUFD might be interested
Data from Bradford suggests the drawbacks are more extensive than thought.
An interesting read. I wasn't actually aware that Queen Victoria and Albert were first cousins.
It does raise intersting issues. Should our government also ban first cousing marriages, as Norway does and Sweden intends? Or is this a step too far in government interference in people's lives? I'd tend towards the former, but am unsure.
£50,000 up front payment to the NHS if you really want to go ahead with it.
And the same if (eg) you want to start smoking. We'll soon balance the books with that model.
Isn't that effectively what happens (and more when you consider social health savings when smokers die relatively early)?
I don't know how the overall net ledger works out. Poor health cost to the economy and the NHS vs Taxes received from the activity + earlier death so less late life health burden.
What we know for sure is that inbreeding isn't taxed.
Data from Bradford suggests the drawbacks are more extensive than thought.
An interesting read. I wasn't actually aware that Queen Victoria and Albert were first cousins.
It does raise intersting issues. Should our government also ban first cousing marriages, as Norway does and Sweden intends? Or is this a step too far in government interference in people's lives? I'd tend towards the former, but am unsure.
£50,000 up front payment to the NHS if you really want to go ahead with it.
And the same if (eg) you want to start smoking. We'll soon balance the books with that model.
Isn't that effectively what happens (and more when you consider social health savings when smokers die relatively early)?
I don't know how the overall net ledger works out. Poor health cost to the economy and the NHS vs Taxes received from the activity + earlier death so less late life health burden.
What we know for sure is that inbreeding isn't taxed.
C'mon, Chaz & Wills pay some tax, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT OBLIGED TO!
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
Wildly O/t..... probably. This has turned up in my inbox.
You have been selected to join the great Illuminati to be a member of this family; You have found favor in the eyes of the Great Creator and hence this noble invitation to be a member of the Elite Family.
I don't suppose by any chance they want anything in return?
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Apple couldn't afford to do it as nobody anywhere in the world would buy an iPhone again. Apart from that a flawless argument
You think if Apple withdrew from the UK market because of some obscure legal dispute between Apple and His Majesty's Government, then everyone else in the world would throw their iPhones in the bin and never buy a new Apple poduct ever, such is the infuence of UK soft power?
I submit that you are on ketamine, but other than that, a flawless argument
No I think if Apple made "all Apple products" in the UK "cease to function" over an "obscure legal dispute" nobody in their right minds would buy Apple again.
I realise you have a mental age of about 7, but do try to remember what you wrote a few minutes before.
Apple did almost exactly that in Russia, in 2022
In 2022, Apple withdrew from Russia abruptly and thoroughly in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of that year. The company took a series of decisive actions that effectively cut off its operations in the country:
1. Immediate Halt of Product Sales
On March 1, 2022, Apple announced that it had stopped selling all its products in Russia, including iPhones, iPads, Macs, and other devices. Russian customers were no longer able to order Apple products from the official Apple online store, and shipments to Russian retailers were suspended.
2. Restrictions on Apple Pay and Financial Services
Apple disabled Apple Pay in Russia, making it difficult for Russian users to make payments via their Apple devices. Several Russian banks were also removed from Apple Pay, aligning with Western sanctions that targeted Russia’s financial sector.
3. Removal of RT and Sputnik from the App Store
Apple removed Russian state-controlled media outlets, RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik, from its App Store globally to limit the spread of Kremlin-backed propaganda.
4. Disabling Key Features in Russia
Apple disabled traffic and live incident reports in Apple Maps in Ukraine and Russia to protect civilians from military movements and avoid potential misuse.
5. Suspension of Advertising and Services
Apple paused advertising on the App Store in Russia, affecting developers who relied on Apple’s ad services for revenue. Subscription-based Apple services like Apple News were also cut off.
6. iCloud and Software Restrictions
While some existing Apple devices in Russia continued to work, Apple restricted new software updates and services for users in Russia. Developers also found it far more difficult to distribute apps and services in the Russian market.
7. Corporate and Retail Exit
Apple closed its physical offices and corporate operations in Russia, effectively cutting ties with the country’s market. Employees in Russia were relocated or let go.
Impact and Russian Response:
Apple’s withdrawal made iPhones and other Apple products scarce in Russia, leading to a resale boom and gray-market imports from third-party countries like Turkey and Kazakhstan.
Many Russian users switched to Android as Apple services became inaccessible.
The Russian government pushed for homegrown alternatives, like promoting its own smartphone operating systems and digital payment solutions.
Apple’s withdrawal was one of the most comprehensive exits in history by a major Western tech company, and unlike some firms that found ways to stay indirectly, Apple has never returned to the Russian market.
Apple has just promised to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Indonesia because the iPhone 16 had been shut out of the country's market for not having have enough components manufactured locally:
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
Who is he writing for that he needs to specify that Cornwall is in England? He also uses American-style dashes (albeit with one stray, British-style space).
Goodwin would have more of a point if he just attacked centrist politicians but his references to a big-P Project make him sound a deranged conspiracy theorist. He could also do with some speaking lessons to vary his monotone.
ETA and ‘if you invited an architect into your home...’ lacks the Faragesque common touch. Who the flip has architects remodelling their home?
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
Mrs C and I were talking about this this morning, during the interview with the chap who is Inquiring into the Water Companies. We wondered what, if any advantage there had been to most of us from the Tories de-nationalisation programme. A few people have, of course, got very rich, but what about the rest of us? "Wanting our country back" to us would be the return of all the assets sold off. And as a small example, someone here mentioned that many ex-Council houses were now rented out.
A really good thread analysing Conservative to Lib Dem voters from GE:
They are small in number, many more to Reform. They are larger in number in Lib Dem constituencies, unsurprisingly. They mostly voted for Brexit. They hold 'Conservative' opinions - death penalty, lower immigration, tougher sentences, pro Brexit (but lighter), conservative values on culture wars. Stopped voting Conservatives due to lack of competency.
Why did they vote Lib Dem? It's just a protest vote really.
Sad news about bumblebees - partly the weather last year. And potentially not great for gardeners or farmers. But Mrs C's garden will still be as full of flowers for them as possible.
'Figures show 2024 was the worst year for bumblebees in the UK since records began.
Bumblebee numbers declined by almost a quarter compared with the 2010-2023 average, according to data from the Bumblebee Conservation Trust. The researchers said the drop was probably due to the cold and wet conditions in the UK last spring.'
Terrible year for moths as well. And moths do much of the heavy lifting on pollination. Not that they get much credit. It's always bloody bees this, bees that...
(They travel further than bees when pollinating, resulting in a greater genetic mix...)
And butterflies.
Of course it'd be moths that do the night pollination as well, I presume.
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
Mrs C and I were talking about this this morning, during the interview with the chap who is Inquiring into the Water Companies. We wondered what, if any advantage there had been to most of us from the Tories de-nationalisation programme. A few people have, of course, got very rich, but what about the rest of us? "Wanting our country back" to us would be the return of all the assets sold off. And as a small example, someone here mentioned that many ex-Council houses were now rented out.
Likely a net positive for those assets which weren't public monopolies. A massive net negative in the case of the monopolies which became private monopolies.
Housing is more complicated. The policy might have been fine if it hadn't been used as a means to take assets from local government, and take the proceeds by central government. The policy in reality was a short term success, and slow burn long term disaster.
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
Mrs C and I were talking about this this morning, during the interview with the chap who is Inquiring into the Water Companies. We wondered what, if any advantage there had been to most of us from the Tories de-nationalisation programme. A few people have, of course, got very rich, but what about the rest of us? "Wanting our country back" to us would be the return of all the assets sold off. And as a small example, someone here mentioned that many ex-Council houses were now rented out.
Likely a net positive for those assets which weren't public monopolies. A massive net negative in the case of the monopolies which became private monopolies.
Housing is more complicated. The policy might have been fine if it hadn't been used as a means to take assets from local government, and take the proceeds by central government. The policy in reality was a short term success, and slow burn long term disaster.
RTB should never have been at below market value and the proceeds should have remained with councils. Just a right to beggar councils really.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Apple couldn't afford to do it as nobody anywhere in the world would buy an iPhone again. Apart from that a flawless argument
You think if Apple withdrew from the UK market because of some obscure legal dispute between Apple and His Majesty's Government, then everyone else in the world would throw their iPhones in the bin and never buy a new Apple poduct ever, such is the infuence of UK soft power?
I submit that you are on ketamine, but other than that, a flawless argument
No I think if Apple made "all Apple products" in the UK "cease to function" over an "obscure legal dispute" nobody in their right minds would buy Apple again.
I realise you have a mental age of about 7, but do try to remember what you wrote a few minutes before.
Apple did almost exactly that in Russia, in 2022
In 2022, Apple withdrew from Russia abruptly and thoroughly in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of that year. The company took a series of decisive actions that effectively cut off its operations in the country:
1. Immediate Halt of Product Sales
On March 1, 2022, Apple announced that it had stopped selling all its products in Russia, including iPhones, iPads, Macs, and other devices. Russian customers were no longer able to order Apple products from the official Apple online store, and shipments to Russian retailers were suspended.
2. Restrictions on Apple Pay and Financial Services
Apple disabled Apple Pay in Russia, making it difficult for Russian users to make payments via their Apple devices. Several Russian banks were also removed from Apple Pay, aligning with Western sanctions that targeted Russia’s financial sector.
3. Removal of RT and Sputnik from the App Store
Apple removed Russian state-controlled media outlets, RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik, from its App Store globally to limit the spread of Kremlin-backed propaganda.
4. Disabling Key Features in Russia
Apple disabled traffic and live incident reports in Apple Maps in Ukraine and Russia to protect civilians from military movements and avoid potential misuse.
5. Suspension of Advertising and Services
Apple paused advertising on the App Store in Russia, affecting developers who relied on Apple’s ad services for revenue. Subscription-based Apple services like Apple News were also cut off.
6. iCloud and Software Restrictions
While some existing Apple devices in Russia continued to work, Apple restricted new software updates and services for users in Russia. Developers also found it far more difficult to distribute apps and services in the Russian market.
7. Corporate and Retail Exit
Apple closed its physical offices and corporate operations in Russia, effectively cutting ties with the country’s market. Employees in Russia were relocated or let go.
Impact and Russian Response:
Apple’s withdrawal made iPhones and other Apple products scarce in Russia, leading to a resale boom and gray-market imports from third-party countries like Turkey and Kazakhstan.
Many Russian users switched to Android as Apple services became inaccessible.
The Russian government pushed for homegrown alternatives, like promoting its own smartphone operating systems and digital payment solutions.
Apple’s withdrawal was one of the most comprehensive exits in history by a major Western tech company, and unlike some firms that found ways to stay indirectly, Apple has never returned to the Russian market.
Apple has just promised to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Indonesia because the iPhone 16 had been shut out of the country's market for not having have enough components manufactured locally:
So? They are simply unable to do what the UK Government wants. Even they cannot access their own encryption and putting in a back door would utterly destroy the whole claim of security. This would be an existential choice between their sales in the UK (and the threat of imprisonment) and their ability to continue with high level security in the whole of the rest of the world. There really wouldn't be any choice to make. The UK just isn't that important a market compared to the rest of the world.
A really good thread analysing Conservative to Lib Dem voters from GE:
They are small in number, many more to Reform. They are larger in number in Lib Dem constituencies, unsurprisingly. They mostly voted for Brexit. They hold 'Conservative' opinions - death penalty, lower immigration, tougher sentences, pro Brexit (but lighter), conservative values on culture wars. Stopped voting Conservatives due to lack of competency.
Why did they vote Lib Dem? It's just a protest vote really.
I'm not quite sure the point you're making - well, I am, you think (or hope) all these voters will run back to the Conservatives at the next General Election.
They might, they might not.
The truth is if you look at the places where the Liberal Democrats thrashed the Conservatives last July (I'll mention Chichester, Harpenden & Berkhamsted and Tewkesbury to name but three) all were built on progress at local level and the ability of the LDs to clearly identify as the main channel for a successful anti-Conservative vote.
Last July was the election where people actively and in large numbers chose to no longer support the Conservative Party - voting LD, Labour, Reform, Green etc was one way of doing that, abstaining was another. Oddly enough, those Tories who stayed at home rather than actively voting for another party probably ensured the Conservatives survived as the second party in the Commons rather than falling to third.
As to where these "Conservative" voters will go at the next election, impossible to know at this time. Whether Badenoch is the leader who will bring them "back into the fold" is again impossible to know at this time.
Many of those constituencies which voted LD in 1997 remained in the LD camp until the disaster of 2015 - whether this tranche of newly elected Liberal Democrat MPs will prove easier to shift is another of the many imponderables around at the moment.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Apple couldn't afford to do it as nobody anywhere in the world would buy an iPhone again. Apart from that a flawless argument
You think if Apple withdrew from the UK market because of some obscure legal dispute between Apple and His Majesty's Government, then everyone else in the world would throw their iPhones in the bin and never buy a new Apple poduct ever, such is the infuence of UK soft power?
I submit that you are on ketamine, but other than that, a flawless argument
No I think if Apple made "all Apple products" in the UK "cease to function" over an "obscure legal dispute" nobody in their right minds would buy Apple again.
I realise you have a mental age of about 7, but do try to remember what you wrote a few minutes before.
Apple did almost exactly that in Russia, in 2022
In 2022, Apple withdrew from Russia abruptly and thoroughly in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of that year. The company took a series of decisive actions that effectively cut off its operations in the country:
1. Immediate Halt of Product Sales
On March 1, 2022, Apple announced that it had stopped selling all its products in Russia, including iPhones, iPads, Macs, and other devices. Russian customers were no longer able to order Apple products from the official Apple online store, and shipments to Russian retailers were suspended.
2. Restrictions on Apple Pay and Financial Services
Apple disabled Apple Pay in Russia, making it difficult for Russian users to make payments via their Apple devices. Several Russian banks were also removed from Apple Pay, aligning with Western sanctions that targeted Russia’s financial sector.
3. Removal of RT and Sputnik from the App Store
Apple removed Russian state-controlled media outlets, RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik, from its App Store globally to limit the spread of Kremlin-backed propaganda.
4. Disabling Key Features in Russia
Apple disabled traffic and live incident reports in Apple Maps in Ukraine and Russia to protect civilians from military movements and avoid potential misuse.
5. Suspension of Advertising and Services
Apple paused advertising on the App Store in Russia, affecting developers who relied on Apple’s ad services for revenue. Subscription-based Apple services like Apple News were also cut off.
6. iCloud and Software Restrictions
While some existing Apple devices in Russia continued to work, Apple restricted new software updates and services for users in Russia. Developers also found it far more difficult to distribute apps and services in the Russian market.
7. Corporate and Retail Exit
Apple closed its physical offices and corporate operations in Russia, effectively cutting ties with the country’s market. Employees in Russia were relocated or let go.
Impact and Russian Response:
Apple’s withdrawal made iPhones and other Apple products scarce in Russia, leading to a resale boom and gray-market imports from third-party countries like Turkey and Kazakhstan.
Many Russian users switched to Android as Apple services became inaccessible.
The Russian government pushed for homegrown alternatives, like promoting its own smartphone operating systems and digital payment solutions.
Apple’s withdrawal was one of the most comprehensive exits in history by a major Western tech company, and unlike some firms that found ways to stay indirectly, Apple has never returned to the Russian market.
Apple has just promised to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Indonesia because the iPhone 16 had been shut out of the country's market for not having have enough components manufactured locally:
So? They are simply unable to do what the UK Government wants. Even they cannot access their own encryption and putting in a back door would utterly destroy the whole claim of security. This would be an existential choice between their sales in the UK (and the threat of imprisonment) and their ability to continue with high level security in the whole of the rest of the world. There really wouldn't be any choice to make. The UK just isn't that important a market compared to the rest of the world.
Why isn't Android or Google impacted the same way that Apple is ?
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
Mrs C and I were talking about this this morning, during the interview with the chap who is Inquiring into the Water Companies. We wondered what, if any advantage there had been to most of us from the Tories de-nationalisation programme. A few people have, of course, got very rich, but what about the rest of us? "Wanting our country back" to us would be the return of all the assets sold off. And as a small example, someone here mentioned that many ex-Council houses were now rented out.
Likely a net positive for those assets which weren't public monopolies. A massive net negative in the case of the monopolies which became private monopolies.
Housing is more complicated. The policy might have been fine if it hadn't been used as a means to take assets from local government, and take the proceeds by central government. The policy in reality was a short term success, and slow burn long term disaster.
Like all broad brush comments one could easily pick holes in mine. For one thing, soon after BT was sold off new technology emerged which made the existing arrangements really out-of-date. I agree with you about housing though. Looked great (to some anyway) at first but now .......
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
Mrs C and I were talking about this this morning, during the interview with the chap who is Inquiring into the Water Companies. We wondered what, if any advantage there had been to most of us from the Tories de-nationalisation programme. A few people have, of course, got very rich, but what about the rest of us? "Wanting our country back" to us would be the return of all the assets sold off. And as a small example, someone here mentioned that many ex-Council houses were now rented out.
Likely a net positive for those assets which weren't public monopolies. A massive net negative in the case of the monopolies which became private monopolies.
Housing is more complicated. The policy might have been fine if it hadn't been used as a means to take assets from local government, and take the proceeds by central government. The policy in reality was a short term success, and slow burn long term disaster.
RTB should never have been at below market value and the proceeds should have remained with councils. Just a right to beggar councils really.
Ultimately it comes back to having a relatively stable population and building at a trickle and having a booming population and building at a trickle.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Apple couldn't afford to do it as nobody anywhere in the world would buy an iPhone again. Apart from that a flawless argument
You think if Apple withdrew from the UK market because of some obscure legal dispute between Apple and His Majesty's Government, then everyone else in the world would throw their iPhones in the bin and never buy a new Apple poduct ever, such is the infuence of UK soft power?
I submit that you are on ketamine, but other than that, a flawless argument
No I think if Apple made "all Apple products" in the UK "cease to function" over an "obscure legal dispute" nobody in their right minds would buy Apple again.
I realise you have a mental age of about 7, but do try to remember what you wrote a few minutes before.
Apple did almost exactly that in Russia, in 2022
In 2022, Apple withdrew from Russia abruptly and thoroughly in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of that year. The company took a series of decisive actions that effectively cut off its operations in the country:
1. Immediate Halt of Product Sales
On March 1, 2022, Apple announced that it had stopped selling all its products in Russia, including iPhones, iPads, Macs, and other devices. Russian customers were no longer able to order Apple products from the official Apple online store, and shipments to Russian retailers were suspended.
2. Restrictions on Apple Pay and Financial Services
Apple disabled Apple Pay in Russia, making it difficult for Russian users to make payments via their Apple devices. Several Russian banks were also removed from Apple Pay, aligning with Western sanctions that targeted Russia’s financial sector.
3. Removal of RT and Sputnik from the App Store
Apple removed Russian state-controlled media outlets, RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik, from its App Store globally to limit the spread of Kremlin-backed propaganda.
4. Disabling Key Features in Russia
Apple disabled traffic and live incident reports in Apple Maps in Ukraine and Russia to protect civilians from military movements and avoid potential misuse.
5. Suspension of Advertising and Services
Apple paused advertising on the App Store in Russia, affecting developers who relied on Apple’s ad services for revenue. Subscription-based Apple services like Apple News were also cut off.
6. iCloud and Software Restrictions
While some existing Apple devices in Russia continued to work, Apple restricted new software updates and services for users in Russia. Developers also found it far more difficult to distribute apps and services in the Russian market.
7. Corporate and Retail Exit
Apple closed its physical offices and corporate operations in Russia, effectively cutting ties with the country’s market. Employees in Russia were relocated or let go.
Impact and Russian Response:
Apple’s withdrawal made iPhones and other Apple products scarce in Russia, leading to a resale boom and gray-market imports from third-party countries like Turkey and Kazakhstan.
Many Russian users switched to Android as Apple services became inaccessible.
The Russian government pushed for homegrown alternatives, like promoting its own smartphone operating systems and digital payment solutions.
Apple’s withdrawal was one of the most comprehensive exits in history by a major Western tech company, and unlike some firms that found ways to stay indirectly, Apple has never returned to the Russian market.
Apple has just promised to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Indonesia because the iPhone 16 had been shut out of the country's market for not having have enough components manufactured locally:
So? They are simply unable to do what the UK Government wants. Even they cannot access their own encryption and putting in a back door would utterly destroy the whole claim of security. This would be an existential choice between their sales in the UK (and the threat of imprisonment) and their ability to continue with high level security in the whole of the rest of the world. There really wouldn't be any choice to make. The UK just isn't that important a market compared to the rest of the world.
Why isn't Android or Google impacted the same way that Apple is ?
Because they don't have the same levels of E2E encryption... yet. Malmesbury mentioned it below. This may all become moot if AI gets its teeth into it but at the moment Apple really do have properly secure encryption and the UK Government has no way of breaking it so wants a back door.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Apple couldn't afford to do it as nobody anywhere in the world would buy an iPhone again. Apart from that a flawless argument
You think if Apple withdrew from the UK market because of some obscure legal dispute between Apple and His Majesty's Government, then everyone else in the world would throw their iPhones in the bin and never buy a new Apple poduct ever, such is the infuence of UK soft power?
I submit that you are on ketamine, but other than that, a flawless argument
No I think if Apple made "all Apple products" in the UK "cease to function" over an "obscure legal dispute" nobody in their right minds would buy Apple again.
I realise you have a mental age of about 7, but do try to remember what you wrote a few minutes before.
Apple did almost exactly that in Russia, in 2022
In 2022, Apple withdrew from Russia abruptly and thoroughly in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of that year. The company took a series of decisive actions that effectively cut off its operations in the country:
1. Immediate Halt of Product Sales
On March 1, 2022, Apple announced that it had stopped selling all its products in Russia, including iPhones, iPads, Macs, and other devices. Russian customers were no longer able to order Apple products from the official Apple online store, and shipments to Russian retailers were suspended.
2. Restrictions on Apple Pay and Financial Services
Apple disabled Apple Pay in Russia, making it difficult for Russian users to make payments via their Apple devices. Several Russian banks were also removed from Apple Pay, aligning with Western sanctions that targeted Russia’s financial sector.
3. Removal of RT and Sputnik from the App Store
Apple removed Russian state-controlled media outlets, RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik, from its App Store globally to limit the spread of Kremlin-backed propaganda.
4. Disabling Key Features in Russia
Apple disabled traffic and live incident reports in Apple Maps in Ukraine and Russia to protect civilians from military movements and avoid potential misuse.
5. Suspension of Advertising and Services
Apple paused advertising on the App Store in Russia, affecting developers who relied on Apple’s ad services for revenue. Subscription-based Apple services like Apple News were also cut off.
6. iCloud and Software Restrictions
While some existing Apple devices in Russia continued to work, Apple restricted new software updates and services for users in Russia. Developers also found it far more difficult to distribute apps and services in the Russian market.
7. Corporate and Retail Exit
Apple closed its physical offices and corporate operations in Russia, effectively cutting ties with the country’s market. Employees in Russia were relocated or let go.
Impact and Russian Response:
Apple’s withdrawal made iPhones and other Apple products scarce in Russia, leading to a resale boom and gray-market imports from third-party countries like Turkey and Kazakhstan.
Many Russian users switched to Android as Apple services became inaccessible.
The Russian government pushed for homegrown alternatives, like promoting its own smartphone operating systems and digital payment solutions.
Apple’s withdrawal was one of the most comprehensive exits in history by a major Western tech company, and unlike some firms that found ways to stay indirectly, Apple has never returned to the Russian market.
Apple has just promised to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Indonesia because the iPhone 16 had been shut out of the country's market for not having have enough components manufactured locally:
So? They are simply unable to do what the UK Government wants. Even they cannot access their own encryption and putting in a back door would utterly destroy the whole claim of security. This would be an existential choice between their sales in the UK (and the threat of imprisonment) and their ability to continue with high level security in the whole of the rest of the world. There really wouldn't be any choice to make. The UK just isn't that important a market compared to the rest of the world.
Why isn't Android or Google impacted the same way that Apple is ?
They offer E2E encryption in a much more limited way.
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
It's fairly pure nativism imo, and quite JDVance-like. The appeal is to "this man proves it with facrs and statistic", but there;s plenty of fiction in there - including the Chicken Nugget story.
I'd say he's positioning himself to be alongside the Famous Five.
Wildly O/t..... probably. This has turned up in my inbox.
You have been selected to join the great Illuminati to be a member of this family; You have found favor in the eyes of the Great Creator and hence this noble invitation to be a member of the Elite Family.
Didn't know it was some kind of lottery. Explains a lot. I never win anything.
A really good thread analysing Conservative to Lib Dem voters from GE:
They are small in number, many more to Reform. They are larger in number in Lib Dem constituencies, unsurprisingly. They mostly voted for Brexit. They hold 'Conservative' opinions - death penalty, lower immigration, tougher sentences, pro Brexit (but lighter), conservative values on culture wars. Stopped voting Conservatives due to lack of competency.
Why did they vote Lib Dem? It's just a protest vote really.
Although I would have suspected most of that I am a little surprised by the emphasis on points 3) and 4). I would have thought it was less so, but....
I don't think we picked that up while we were canvassing and I am in one of those typical Surrey seats. However evidence to support what you report is that although our knock up data was generally accurate (I only knocked up one Conservative and no others out of several hundred), I did knock up Reform voters, a dozen or so. So a fair number who said they would vote for us (presumably to punish the Tories) went out and voted Reform. On that basis presumably there were more who were so inclined but stuck to switching to the LDs
@hyufd has the more traditional view (Remainer, socially liberal, middle class) of the switchers in LD/Tory marginals in places like Surrey and Oxford and I was inclined to think it was a bit of both. I would be interested in his views, following your report.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Apple couldn't afford to do it as nobody anywhere in the world would buy an iPhone again. Apart from that a flawless argument
You think if Apple withdrew from the UK market because of some obscure legal dispute between Apple and His Majesty's Government, then everyone else in the world would throw their iPhones in the bin and never buy a new Apple poduct ever, such is the infuence of UK soft power?
I submit that you are on ketamine, but other than that, a flawless argument
No I think if Apple made "all Apple products" in the UK "cease to function" over an "obscure legal dispute" nobody in their right minds would buy Apple again.
I realise you have a mental age of about 7, but do try to remember what you wrote a few minutes before.
Apple did almost exactly that in Russia, in 2022
In 2022, Apple withdrew from Russia abruptly and thoroughly in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of that year. The company took a series of decisive actions that effectively cut off its operations in the country:
1. Immediate Halt of Product Sales
On March 1, 2022, Apple announced that it had stopped selling all its products in Russia, including iPhones, iPads, Macs, and other devices. Russian customers were no longer able to order Apple products from the official Apple online store, and shipments to Russian retailers were suspended.
2. Restrictions on Apple Pay and Financial Services
Apple disabled Apple Pay in Russia, making it difficult for Russian users to make payments via their Apple devices. Several Russian banks were also removed from Apple Pay, aligning with Western sanctions that targeted Russia’s financial sector.
3. Removal of RT and Sputnik from the App Store
Apple removed Russian state-controlled media outlets, RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik, from its App Store globally to limit the spread of Kremlin-backed propaganda.
4. Disabling Key Features in Russia
Apple disabled traffic and live incident reports in Apple Maps in Ukraine and Russia to protect civilians from military movements and avoid potential misuse.
5. Suspension of Advertising and Services
Apple paused advertising on the App Store in Russia, affecting developers who relied on Apple’s ad services for revenue. Subscription-based Apple services like Apple News were also cut off.
6. iCloud and Software Restrictions
While some existing Apple devices in Russia continued to work, Apple restricted new software updates and services for users in Russia. Developers also found it far more difficult to distribute apps and services in the Russian market.
7. Corporate and Retail Exit
Apple closed its physical offices and corporate operations in Russia, effectively cutting ties with the country’s market. Employees in Russia were relocated or let go.
Impact and Russian Response:
Apple’s withdrawal made iPhones and other Apple products scarce in Russia, leading to a resale boom and gray-market imports from third-party countries like Turkey and Kazakhstan.
Many Russian users switched to Android as Apple services became inaccessible.
The Russian government pushed for homegrown alternatives, like promoting its own smartphone operating systems and digital payment solutions.
Apple’s withdrawal was one of the most comprehensive exits in history by a major Western tech company, and unlike some firms that found ways to stay indirectly, Apple has never returned to the Russian market.
Apple has just promised to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Indonesia because the iPhone 16 had been shut out of the country's market for not having have enough components manufactured locally:
So? They are simply unable to do what the UK Government wants. Even they cannot access their own encryption and putting in a back door would utterly destroy the whole claim of security. This would be an existential choice between their sales in the UK (and the threat of imprisonment) and their ability to continue with high level security in the whole of the rest of the world. There really wouldn't be any choice to make. The UK just isn't that important a market compared to the rest of the world.
What if lots of other countries follow our approach on this?
Wildly O/t..... probably. This has turned up in my inbox.
You have been selected to join the great Illuminati to be a member of this family; You have found favor in the eyes of the Great Creator and hence this noble invitation to be a member of the Elite Family.
Didn't know it was some kind of lottery. Explains a lot. I never win anything.
Three people won the lottery last night. Normally that means there is a pattern to the numbers but I can't see anything in 1 4 10 26 31 40. There is no special shape on the slip, and they do not work as family ages (mum, dad & 4 kids). Maybe it is just chance, like, you know, a lottery.
A really good thread analysing Conservative to Lib Dem voters from GE:
They are small in number, many more to Reform. They are larger in number in Lib Dem constituencies, unsurprisingly. They mostly voted for Brexit. They hold 'Conservative' opinions - death penalty, lower immigration, tougher sentences, pro Brexit (but lighter), conservative values on culture wars. Stopped voting Conservatives due to lack of competency.
Why did they vote Lib Dem? It's just a protest vote really.
Although I would have suspected most of that I am a little surprised by the emphasis on points 3) and 4). I would have thought it was less so, but....
I don't think we picked that up while we were canvassing and I am in one of those typical Surrey seats. However evidence to support what you report is that although our knock up data was generally accurate (I only knocked up one Conservative and no others out of several hundred), I did knock up Reform voters, a dozen or so. So a fair number who said they would vote for us (presumably to punish the Tories) went out and voted Reform. On that basis presumably there were more who were so inclined but stuck to switching to the LDs
@hyufd has the more traditional view (Remainer, socially liberal, middle class) of the switchers in LD/Tory marginals in places like Surrey and Oxford and I was inclined to think it was a bit of both. I would be interested in his views, following your report.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Apple couldn't afford to do it as nobody anywhere in the world would buy an iPhone again. Apart from that a flawless argument
You think if Apple withdrew from the UK market because of some obscure legal dispute between Apple and His Majesty's Government, then everyone else in the world would throw their iPhones in the bin and never buy a new Apple poduct ever, such is the infuence of UK soft power?
I submit that you are on ketamine, but other than that, a flawless argument
No I think if Apple made "all Apple products" in the UK "cease to function" over an "obscure legal dispute" nobody in their right minds would buy Apple again.
I realise you have a mental age of about 7, but do try to remember what you wrote a few minutes before.
Apple did almost exactly that in Russia, in 2022
In 2022, Apple withdrew from Russia abruptly and thoroughly in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of that year. The company took a series of decisive actions that effectively cut off its operations in the country:
1. Immediate Halt of Product Sales
On March 1, 2022, Apple announced that it had stopped selling all its products in Russia, including iPhones, iPads, Macs, and other devices. Russian customers were no longer able to order Apple products from the official Apple online store, and shipments to Russian retailers were suspended.
2. Restrictions on Apple Pay and Financial Services
Apple disabled Apple Pay in Russia, making it difficult for Russian users to make payments via their Apple devices. Several Russian banks were also removed from Apple Pay, aligning with Western sanctions that targeted Russia’s financial sector.
3. Removal of RT and Sputnik from the App Store
Apple removed Russian state-controlled media outlets, RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik, from its App Store globally to limit the spread of Kremlin-backed propaganda.
4. Disabling Key Features in Russia
Apple disabled traffic and live incident reports in Apple Maps in Ukraine and Russia to protect civilians from military movements and avoid potential misuse.
5. Suspension of Advertising and Services
Apple paused advertising on the App Store in Russia, affecting developers who relied on Apple’s ad services for revenue. Subscription-based Apple services like Apple News were also cut off.
6. iCloud and Software Restrictions
While some existing Apple devices in Russia continued to work, Apple restricted new software updates and services for users in Russia. Developers also found it far more difficult to distribute apps and services in the Russian market.
7. Corporate and Retail Exit
Apple closed its physical offices and corporate operations in Russia, effectively cutting ties with the country’s market. Employees in Russia were relocated or let go.
Impact and Russian Response:
Apple’s withdrawal made iPhones and other Apple products scarce in Russia, leading to a resale boom and gray-market imports from third-party countries like Turkey and Kazakhstan.
Many Russian users switched to Android as Apple services became inaccessible.
The Russian government pushed for homegrown alternatives, like promoting its own smartphone operating systems and digital payment solutions.
Apple’s withdrawal was one of the most comprehensive exits in history by a major Western tech company, and unlike some firms that found ways to stay indirectly, Apple has never returned to the Russian market.
Apple has just promised to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Indonesia because the iPhone 16 had been shut out of the country's market for not having have enough components manufactured locally:
So? They are simply unable to do what the UK Government wants. Even they cannot access their own encryption and putting in a back door would utterly destroy the whole claim of security. This would be an existential choice between their sales in the UK (and the threat of imprisonment) and their ability to continue with high level security in the whole of the rest of the world. There really wouldn't be any choice to make. The UK just isn't that important a market compared to the rest of the world.
Why isn't Android or Google impacted the same way that Apple is ?
Because they don't have the same levels of E2E encryption... yet. Malmesbury mentioned it below. This may all become moot if AI gets its teeth into it but at the moment Apple really do have properly secure encryption and the UK Government has no way of breaking it so wants a back door.
Throwing my twp penn'orth in on a topic I know nothing about (when has that stopped anyone here?), but what about Whatsapp. Surely that would be doomed?
Mike Amesbury has his prison sentence suspended for 2 years following an appeal
I think suspended sentences are a good idea but surely they should be suspended for much, much longer. A lot of court cases don't even get heard within 2 years!
I would have thought if he assaults anyone else in the next 10 years he should be serving this sentence on top of the one for the next.
A really good thread analysing Conservative to Lib Dem voters from GE:
They are small in number, many more to Reform. They are larger in number in Lib Dem constituencies, unsurprisingly. They mostly voted for Brexit. They hold 'Conservative' opinions - death penalty, lower immigration, tougher sentences, pro Brexit (but lighter), conservative values on culture wars. Stopped voting Conservatives due to lack of competency.
Why did they vote Lib Dem? It's just a protest vote really.
I'm not quite sure the point you're making - well, I am, you think (or hope) all these voters will run back to the Conservatives at the next General Election.
They might, they might not.
The truth is if you look at the places where the Liberal Democrats thrashed the Conservatives last July (I'll mention Chichester, Harpenden & Berkhamsted and Tewkesbury to name but three) all were built on progress at local level and the ability of the LDs to clearly identify as the main channel for a successful anti-Conservative vote.
Last July was the election where people actively and in large numbers chose to no longer support the Conservative Party - voting LD, Labour, Reform, Green etc was one way of doing that, abstaining was another. Oddly enough, those Tories who stayed at home rather than actively voting for another party probably ensured the Conservatives survived as the second party in the Commons rather than falling to third.
As to where these "Conservative" voters will go at the next election, impossible to know at this time. Whether Badenoch is the leader who will bring them "back into the fold" is again impossible to know at this time.
Many of those constituencies which voted LD in 1997 remained in the LD camp until the disaster of 2015 - whether this tranche of newly elected Liberal Democrat MPs will prove easier to shift is another of the many imponderables around at the moment.
It's not my point(s), it is the author of the post analysing the specific responses of Con to LD voters at last GE.
And I'm not disagreeing with your views either.
The numbers are surprisingly small. Important in certain constituencies, but still small. Most ex-Con voters, did not go to LD, not even remotely.
Do I think the small numbers that did will revert back to Conservatives? Not until they start to look competent again. That will take some time and I don't know if they will or not.
I also don't think they are really LD voters. I wouldn't be surprised if they switched to Reform as the next protest vote.
I note Amesbury's sentence wasn't decided by any old magistrate but by Tam Ikram who has plenty of legal experience. Does the judiciary get more lenient the higher up you get or something ?
Wildly O/t..... probably. This has turned up in my inbox.
You have been selected to join the great Illuminati to be a member of this family; You have found favor in the eyes of the Great Creator and hence this noble invitation to be a member of the Elite Family.
"The planned strike action affecting Elizabeth line services on Thursday 27 February and Saturday 1, Saturday 8 and Monday 10 March has been suspended.
Elizabeth line services are expected to run as normal on these days."
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Apple has withdrawn the facility in question from the British market.
I understand. The interesting question is what happens if a UK citizen in the US uses the facility and the UK courts request the data.
If British courts request the data, and American courts do not intervene, then Apple cannot provide the data because it is encrypted in such a way that Apple cannot decrypt it. That is a key point. What Britain is demanding is that it should not have been strongly encrypted in the first place. (This also might be taken as meaning Britain is telling American companies to weaken security for Americans, because it cannot tell whether a customer is American or British in America.)
IANAL but I don’t believe that “I can’t” is a sufficient defence against a court order especially as Apple has demonstrated in advance by withdrawing the product from the UK market that it is not willing to comply with the law.
What is your point? It is mathematically impossible and if you think a British court can overpower the government of the United States (and mathematics) then I've got a bridge to sell you. And that is betting without American courts nixing any warrant served on Apple.
Then the courts can hold Apple UK in contempt.
And Apple withdraw from the UK. There is an inevitablility about this that you don't seem to comprehend.
Of course. But a legal judgement can be enforced in other countries.
Of course it’s not going to get that far.
Apple not providing a back door has been legally judged in the US as their right. All the way to the Supreme Court.
So any attempt to go after Apple US in the courts, by the U.K., will fall on constitutional grounds.
The point is you get them for contempt of court in the UK.
And then you have finally judicially decided liability that can be enforced in multiple international markets
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Apple has withdrawn the facility in question from the British market.
I understand. The interesting question is what happens if a UK citizen in the US uses the facility and the UK courts request the data.
If British courts request the data, and American courts do not intervene, then Apple cannot provide the data because it is encrypted in such a way that Apple cannot decrypt it. That is a key point. What Britain is demanding is that it should not have been strongly encrypted in the first place. (This also might be taken as meaning Britain is telling American companies to weaken security for Americans, because it cannot tell whether a customer is American or British in America.)
IANAL but I don’t believe that “I can’t” is a sufficient defence against a court order especially as Apple has demonstrated in advance by withdrawing the product from the UK market that it is not willing to comply with the law.
What is your point? It is mathematically impossible and if you think a British court can overpower the government of the United States (and mathematics) then I've got a bridge to sell you. And that is betting without American courts nixing any warrant served on Apple.
Then the courts can hold Apple UK in contempt.
And Apple withdraw from the UK. There is an inevitablility about this that you don't seem to comprehend.
Of course. But a legal judgement can be enforced in other countries.
Of course it’s not going to get that far.
Apple not providing a back door has been legally judged in the US as their right. All the way to the Supreme Court.
So any attempt to go after Apple US in the courts, by the U.K., will fall on constitutional grounds.
The point is you get them for contempt of court in the UK.
And then you have finally judicially decided liability that can be enforced in multiple international markets
Can you explain this one more fully, not quite following here...
Data from Bradford suggests the drawbacks are more extensive than thought.
An interesting read. I wasn't actually aware that Queen Victoria and Albert were first cousins.
It does raise intersting issues. Should our government also ban first cousing marriages, as Norway does and Sweden intends? Or is this a step too far in government interference in people's lives? I'd tend towards the former, but am unsure.
£50,000 up front payment to the NHS if you really want to go ahead with it.
And the same if (eg) you want to start smoking. We'll soon balance the books with that model.
Isn't that effectively what happens (and more when you consider social health savings when smokers die relatively early)?
I don't know how the overall net ledger works out. Poor health cost to the economy and the NHS vs Taxes received from the activity + earlier death so less late life health burden.
What we know for sure is that inbreeding isn't taxed.
C'mon, Chaz & Wills pay some tax, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT OBLIGED TO!
Of course they are not obliged to.
The UK constitutional settlement is delicately balanced on the fiction that the government is the Crown.
If the government demanded stuff from the Crown by right then it upends the whole thing. Far better for the government to say “I say old chap, terribly sorry, it’s a bit awkward, but would you mind donating 25% of your pre-tax profits to the state. Help us out a bit, you see.”
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
Mrs C and I were talking about this this morning, during the interview with the chap who is Inquiring into the Water Companies. We wondered what, if any advantage there had been to most of us from the Tories de-nationalisation programme. A few people have, of course, got very rich, but what about the rest of us? "Wanting our country back" to us would be the return of all the assets sold off. And as a small example, someone here mentioned that many ex-Council houses were now rented out.
Likely a net positive for those assets which weren't public monopolies. A massive net negative in the case of the monopolies which became private monopolies.
Housing is more complicated. The policy might have been fine if it hadn't been used as a means to take assets from local government, and take the proceeds by central government. The policy in reality was a short term success, and slow burn long term disaster.
RTB should never have been at below market value and the proceeds should have remained with councils. Just a right to beggar councils really.
On that score, recall that back when, electricity and water used to be municipal owned corporations. Which represented another base of regional economic power.
It’s apparently okay if you're an alleged rapist and people trafficker as long you can “ own the libs “ and can get released because of pressure from the Trump administration.
It’s apparently okay if you're an alleged rapist and people trafficker as long you can “ own the libs “ and can get released because of pressure from the Trump administration.
One small consolation is that he is still subject to recall by Romania to face potential charges. So with any luck will stay way from Europe for fear of arrest, and remain in Florida, which is welcome to him along with their existing assortment of undesirables.
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
Mrs C and I were talking about this this morning, during the interview with the chap who is Inquiring into the Water Companies. We wondered what, if any advantage there had been to most of us from the Tories de-nationalisation programme. A few people have, of course, got very rich, but what about the rest of us? "Wanting our country back" to us would be the return of all the assets sold off. And as a small example, someone here mentioned that many ex-Council houses were now rented out.
Another alleged XL bully attacks kills a 19 year old woman in Bristol .
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
Well said
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
It’s apparently okay if you're an alleged rapist and people trafficker as long you can “ own the libs “ and can get released because of pressure from the Trump administration.
One small consolation is that he is still subject to recall by Romania to face potential charges. So with any luck will stay way from Europe for fear of arrest, and remain in Florida, which is welcome to him along with their existing assortment of undesirables.
The UK could ask for his extradition from the USA which will be met with a big fat no ! The deportation agreement seems to be one of the US asks the UK says yes. The other way around we get told to get lost .
Another alleged XL bully attacks kills a 19 year old woman in Bristol .
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
Well said
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
Any other ideas?
Thanks . I’m getting really sick of these XL bully dog owners whining about their alleged “ wouldn’t hurt a fly “ killing machine . The owners can just do one and I’d be happy to see every last XL bully put down.
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
Mrs C and I were talking about this this morning, during the interview with the chap who is Inquiring into the Water Companies. We wondered what, if any advantage there had been to most of us from the Tories de-nationalisation programme. A few people have, of course, got very rich, but what about the rest of us? "Wanting our country back" to us would be the return of all the assets sold off. And as a small example, someone here mentioned that many ex-Council houses were now rented out.
As this has ruled out public ownership, SFAICS, I doubt if many of us have a lot of very bright ideas for how to burn the candle at both ends and also make huge profits for plutocrats while nationalising their losses and debts. Perhaps the banks have some ideas on how to do this.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Apple has withdrawn the facility in question from the British market.
I understand. The interesting question is what happens if a UK citizen in the US uses the facility and the UK courts request the data.
If British courts request the data, and American courts do not intervene, then Apple cannot provide the data because it is encrypted in such a way that Apple cannot decrypt it. That is a key point. What Britain is demanding is that it should not have been strongly encrypted in the first place. (This also might be taken as meaning Britain is telling American companies to weaken security for Americans, because it cannot tell whether a customer is American or British in America.)
IANAL but I don’t believe that “I can’t” is a sufficient defence against a court order especially as Apple has demonstrated in advance by withdrawing the product from the UK market that it is not willing to comply with the law.
What is your point? It is mathematically impossible and if you think a British court can overpower the government of the United States (and mathematics) then I've got a bridge to sell you. And that is betting without American courts nixing any warrant served on Apple.
Then the courts can hold Apple UK in contempt.
And Apple withdraw from the UK. There is an inevitablility about this that you don't seem to comprehend.
Of course. But a legal judgement can be enforced in other countries.
Of course it’s not going to get that far.
Apple not providing a back door has been legally judged in the US as their right. All the way to the Supreme Court.
So any attempt to go after Apple US in the courts, by the U.K., will fall on constitutional grounds.
The point is you get them for contempt of court in the UK.
And then you have finally judicially decided liability that can be enforced in multiple international markets
Imagine the Chinese government decide that a British company has broken Chinese law by not giving them data on someone they, the Chinese government don’t like.
Do you really think that international lawfare of the type you advocate is a good idea then?
To reiterate the point - what the U.K. government is trying for is demanding Apple, not in the U.K., handover data they don’t have access to (and is held in another jurisdiction) on the grounds that it involves a U.K. legal matter.
A really good thread analysing Conservative to Lib Dem voters from GE:
They are small in number, many more to Reform. They are larger in number in Lib Dem constituencies, unsurprisingly. They mostly voted for Brexit. They hold 'Conservative' opinions - death penalty, lower immigration, tougher sentences, pro Brexit (but lighter), conservative values on culture wars. Stopped voting Conservatives due to lack of competency.
Why did they vote Lib Dem? It's just a protest vote really.
Interesting analysis that doesn't quite support the headline points here. Con to Lib supporters are less liberal than always Lib Dems. Which isn't surprising as they probably wouldn't have voted Conservative in 2019 if they were. But they are more moderate than those who stuck it out with the Conservatives.
Key point is a good one though. Many of us are making the assumption these switchers will stay with the Lib Dems at the next election. This assumption hasn't been tested.
Another alleged XL bully attacks kills a 19 year old woman in Bristol .
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
Well said
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
Any other ideas?
Thanks . I’m getting really sick of these XL bully dog owners whining about their alleged “ wouldn’t hurt a fly “ killing machine . The owners can just do one and I’d be happy to see every last XL bully put down.
I’d happily see any “fighting dog” shot on sight
Alternatively if people are allowed to own these dogs and walk around with them I want the right to carry a gun
It’s apparently okay if you're an alleged rapist and people trafficker as long you can “ own the libs “ and can get released because of pressure from the Trump administration.
I don't care a fig about Tate other than to say if there are charges to answer they should be in court. As in the UK justice delayed is no-one any good.
"Cabinet officers, who had brought notes for the statements they expected to make, sat silent, while Musk, the unelected billionaire from South Africa who put more than a quarter of a billion dollars into electing Trump, spoke more than anyone except Trump himself. Trump didn’t turn to Vice President J.D. Vance until 56 minutes into the meeting, and Vance spoke for only 36 seconds."
Another alleged XL bully attacks kills a 19 year old woman in Bristol .
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
Well said
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
Another alleged XL bully attacks kills a 19 year old woman in Bristol .
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
Well said
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
Any other ideas?
Thanks . I’m getting really sick of these XL bully dog owners whining about their alleged “ wouldn’t hurt a fly “ killing machine . The owners can just do one and I’d be happy to see every last XL bully put down.
My emotional support Salt Water Crocodile, Bubbles, is harmless and loveable. All two tons of him.
Apart from some completely unforeseeable accidents. When he eats estate agents and XL Bully owners.
This only happens once or twice a week and is always the other parties fault.
It’s apparently okay if you're an alleged rapist and people trafficker as long you can “ own the libs “ and can get released because of pressure from the Trump administration.
One small consolation is that he is still subject to recall by Romania to face potential charges. So with any luck will stay way from Europe for fear of arrest, and remain in Florida, which is welcome to him along with their existing assortment of undesirables.
The UK could ask for his extradition from the USA which will be met with a big fat no ! The deportation agreement seems to be one of the US asks the UK says yes. The other way around we get told to get lost .
Mike Amesbury has his prison sentence suspended for 2 years following an appeal
So the recall petition still stands.
Does he have any recourse to re-appeal?
I'm rusty on criminal procedure but believe he can still apply to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). However, they don't need to accept the application to have a hearing if there's no substantive point of law, and I doubt they will. There was a reasonable argument the prison term should have been suspended (and indeed the Crown Court has just agreed). But a relatively short suspended term given the type of offence is common and pretty uncontroversial.
Another alleged XL bully attacks kills a 19 year old woman in Bristol .
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
Well said
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
Any other ideas?
The Blank Slate must be defended at all costs?
The breed-based legislation isn't working? Vide the new kinds of XL Bully-type dogs, cane corso, etc.
Another alleged XL bully attacks kills a 19 year old woman in Bristol .
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
Well said
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
Any other ideas?
Since Brexit the liberal intelligentsia has had to reassess its treatment of the lower orders - calling them ghastly chavs who only know about getting intoxicated, pumping out kids and having tattoos appears to have been counterproductive. So I suppose running a campaign to save their favourite breed of dog is intended as an olive branch to get them back on side.
Mike Amesbury has his prison sentence suspended for 2 years following an appeal
So the recall petition still stands.
Does he have any recourse to re-appeal?
I'm rusty on criminal procedure but believe he can still apply to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). However, they don't need to accept the application if there's no substantive point of law, and I doubt there is. There was a reasonable argument the prison term should have been suspended (and indeed the Crown Court has just agreed). But a relatively short suspended term given the type of offence is common and pretty uncontroversial.
The original judgement clearly set out the reasons for the categorisation of the offence under the sentencing guidelines.
It’s apparently okay if you're an alleged rapist and people trafficker as long you can “ own the libs “ and can get released because of pressure from the Trump administration.
One small consolation is that he is still subject to recall by Romania to face potential charges. So with any luck will stay way from Europe for fear of arrest, and remain in Florida, which is welcome to him along with their existing assortment of undesirables.
The UK could ask for his extradition from the USA which will be met with a big fat no ! The deportation agreement seems to be one of the US asks the UK says yes. The other way around we get told to get lost .
Actually, to this point, everyone we’ve asked for extradition under the current treaty, has been extradited.
In a number of cases, US requests to the U.K. have been turned down, by the courts.
Mike Amesbury has his prison sentence suspended for 2 years following an appeal
So the recall petition still stands.
Does he have any recourse to re-appeal?
With leave to the Court of Appeal. Which I doubt if he would get. It would be unwise as the CA can increase a sentence, so there is a very small but not zero risk of reimposing the immediate sentence.
A wise person would realise that he has been fairly fortunate to get a suspension, and also that he is not at this moment well suited for a continuing career as an MP.
Another alleged XL bully attacks kills a 19 year old woman in Bristol .
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
Well said
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
Any other ideas?
The other idea might be that The Graun is not actively campaigning to “save these dogs” and that you have in fact done a Trump there: Don't like the facts? Well, make up some you do like.
It’s apparently okay if you're an alleged rapist and people trafficker as long you can “ own the libs “ and can get released because of pressure from the Trump administration.
One small consolation is that he is still subject to recall by Romania to face potential charges. So with any luck will stay way from Europe for fear of arrest, and remain in Florida, which is welcome to him along with their existing assortment of undesirables.
The UK could ask for his extradition from the USA which will be met with a big fat no ! The deportation agreement seems to be one of the US asks the UK says yes. The other way around we get told to get lost .
This was predicted and should never have been allowed to happen.
The US now needs to step up. We have an extradition treaty with them and they need to cooperate fully.
The Tate brothers stand accused of rape and human trafficking in the UK and must face our justice system.
Read the follow up responses and Honest Bob has misread HIS room. Two tier Keir and taxi drivers would have landed better. That is of course your boy Farage's line.
Mike Amesbury has his prison sentence suspended for 2 years following an appeal
So the recall petition still stands.
Does he have any recourse to re-appeal?
With leave to the Court of Appeal. Which I doubt if he would get. It would be unwise as the CA can increase a sentence, so there is a very small but not zero risk of reimposing the immediate sentence.
A wise person would realise that he has been fairly fortunate to get a suspension, and also that he is not at this moment well suited for a continuing career as an MP.
I agree. Suspect he'll be under heavy pressure from Labour (to the extent that still matters to him) as presumably they could make the by-election coincide with local elections in May if he falls on his sword promptly rather than going through the recall process. Broadly, I think that would be helpful for them as they either get the bad electoral news over in a single hit, or they hang on to the seat and point to it as some bright news in an inevitably pretty dire set of local elections.
Another alleged XL bully attacks kills a 19 year old woman in Bristol .
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
Well said
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
Any other ideas?
Thanks . I’m getting really sick of these XL bully dog owners whining about their alleged “ wouldn’t hurt a fly “ killing machine . The owners can just do one and I’d be happy to see every last XL bully put down.
My emotional support Salt Water Crocodile, Bubbles, is harmless and loveable. All two tons of him.
Apart from some completely unforeseeable accidents. When he eats estate agents and XL Bully owners.
This only happens once or twice a week and is always the other parties fault.
Here's a question for Robert: Do you think we should discourage individuals from choosing products, in part, by the nations that manufacture them?
For example, everything being equal, I prefer to buy products made in democratic or friendly nations (preferably both). So, for example, I avoid products made in "Emperor" Xi's nation, when I can.
I suspect I am not alone in that kind of consumer choice, since I frequently see efforts by companies to brand the products as at least partly American, for example by putting "packaged in the United States" on their products.
(Amazon keeps asking me to rate products; I have been wondering whether they would accept me deducting points for those political reasons -- and saying so.)
Providing honest counsel is fundamental to American military culture, but it is not part of Russia’s culture, and if there’s a theme to Trump’s second term so far, it’s not Make America Great Again; it’s Make America Into Russia. The Russian military is brutal and unthinkingly obedient — and that’s exactly what the president wants.
Another alleged XL bully attacks kills a 19 year old woman in Bristol .
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
Well said
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
Any other ideas?
Thanks . I’m getting really sick of these XL bully dog owners whining about their alleged “ wouldn’t hurt a fly “ killing machine . The owners can just do one and I’d be happy to see every last XL bully put down.
My emotional support Salt Water Crocodile, Bubbles, is harmless and loveable. All two tons of him.
Apart from some completely unforeseeable accidents. When he eats estate agents and XL Bully owners.
This only happens once or twice a week and is always the other parties fault.
D'Oyly Carte had a pet crocodile.
Oh! Never knew that. *looks up*
An unusual addition to the Weybridge biota till it got caught. Rather sad that it was only two feet long, mind.
It’s apparently okay if you're an alleged rapist and people trafficker as long you can “ own the libs “ and can get released because of pressure from the Trump administration.
One small consolation is that he is still subject to recall by Romania to face potential charges. So with any luck will stay way from Europe for fear of arrest, and remain in Florida, which is welcome to him along with their existing assortment of undesirables.
The UK could ask for his extradition from the USA which will be met with a big fat no ! The deportation agreement seems to be one of the US asks the UK says yes. The other way around we get told to get lost .
A really good thread analysing Conservative to Lib Dem voters from GE:
They are small in number, many more to Reform. They are larger in number in Lib Dem constituencies, unsurprisingly. They mostly voted for Brexit. They hold 'Conservative' opinions - death penalty, lower immigration, tougher sentences, pro Brexit (but lighter), conservative values on culture wars. Stopped voting Conservatives due to lack of competency.
Why did they vote Lib Dem? It's just a protest vote really.
Interesting analysis that doesn't quite support the headline points here. Con to Lib supporters are less liberal than always Lib Dems. Which isn't surprising as they probably wouldn't have voted Conservative in 2019 if they were. But they are more moderate than those who stuck it out with the Conservatives.
Key point is a good one though. Many of us are making the assumption these switchers will stay with the Lib Dems at the next election. This assumption hasn't been tested.
Could they be 'one nation' tories who have seen such MPs kicked out of the party by Boris?
It’s apparently okay if you're an alleged rapist and people trafficker as long you can “ own the libs “ and can get released because of pressure from the Trump administration.
One small consolation is that he is still subject to recall by Romania to face potential charges. So with any luck will stay way from Europe for fear of arrest, and remain in Florida, which is welcome to him along with their existing assortment of undesirables.
The UK could ask for his extradition from the USA which will be met with a big fat no ! The deportation agreement seems to be one of the US asks the UK says yes. The other way around we get told to get lost .
This was predicted and should never have been allowed to happen.
The US now needs to step up. We have an extradition treaty with them and they need to cooperate fully.
The Tate brothers stand accused of rape and human trafficking in the UK and must face our justice system.
Read the follow up responses and Honest Bob has misread HIS room. Two tier Keir and taxi drivers would have landed better. That is of course your boy Farage's line.
Has Matt Goodwin decided to be the next leader of Reform and ultimately PM, or is he sticking to making a name and career out of rabble rousing populist simple answers to complex problems? Or both. It isn't neither.
Mrs C and I were talking about this this morning, during the interview with the chap who is Inquiring into the Water Companies. We wondered what, if any advantage there had been to most of us from the Tories de-nationalisation programme. A few people have, of course, got very rich, but what about the rest of us? "Wanting our country back" to us would be the return of all the assets sold off. And as a small example, someone here mentioned that many ex-Council houses were now rented out.
As this has ruled out public ownership, SFAICS, I doubt if many of us have a lot of very bright ideas for how to burn the candle at both ends and also make huge profits for plutocrats while nationalising their losses and debts. Perhaps the banks have some ideas on how to do this.
Yes, that's daft.
Bill payers are basically being told they need to pay to rebuild the capital base of the industry, for the benefit of the private owners who have destroyed it over the last couple of decades. The owners will then demand a "commercial rate of return" on the capital base WE have paid for.
Some are already taking legal action to demand higher bills than the increases the regulator has already granted. Taking the piss.
The entire system stinks, and I think the public should say so. Loudly.
NB. the Establishment plan is to shuffle in thicko Cleverley when Kemi blows. 'We thought we had the Black Thatcher, she turned out to be the Black Truss, but now we got the Black Boris, ta-da!'
The members come in for a lot of criticism, but MPs keep putting these candidates forwards.
Providing honest counsel is fundamental to American military culture, but it is not part of Russia’s culture, and if there’s a theme to Trump’s second term so far, it’s not Make America Great Again; it’s Make America Into Russia. The Russian military is brutal and unthinkingly obedient — and that’s exactly what the president wants.
It’s apparently okay if you're an alleged rapist and people trafficker as long you can “ own the libs “ and can get released because of pressure from the Trump administration.
One small consolation is that he is still subject to recall by Romania to face potential charges. So with any luck will stay way from Europe for fear of arrest, and remain in Florida, which is welcome to him along with their existing assortment of undesirables.
The UK could ask for his extradition from the USA which will be met with a big fat no ! The deportation agreement seems to be one of the US asks the UK says yes. The other way around we get told to get lost .
This was predicted and should never have been allowed to happen.
The US now needs to step up. We have an extradition treaty with them and they need to cooperate fully.
The Tate brothers stand accused of rape and human trafficking in the UK and must face our justice system.
Wow. Is Trump actually losing elements of the British Right? I mean, if even the likes of Jenners are starting to bristle...
The one thing you can absolutely rely upon with Jenrick is that he never does anything out of principle, but only through the lens of how it advances his career. Assume he’s set on leading the lore and ordure Conservatives rather than any Reformist dabbling.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Apple has withdrawn the facility in question from the British market.
I understand. The interesting question is what happens if a UK citizen in the US uses the facility and the UK courts request the data.
If British courts request the data, and American courts do not intervene, then Apple cannot provide the data because it is encrypted in such a way that Apple cannot decrypt it. That is a key point. What Britain is demanding is that it should not have been strongly encrypted in the first place. (This also might be taken as meaning Britain is telling American companies to weaken security for Americans, because it cannot tell whether a customer is American or British in America.)
IANAL but I don’t believe that “I can’t” is a sufficient defence against a court order especially as Apple has demonstrated in advance by withdrawing the product from the UK market that it is not willing to comply with the law.
What is your point? It is mathematically impossible and if you think a British court can overpower the government of the United States (and mathematics) then I've got a bridge to sell you. And that is betting without American courts nixing any warrant served on Apple.
Then the courts can hold Apple UK in contempt.
And Apple withdraw from the UK. There is an inevitablility about this that you don't seem to comprehend.
Discussion of the legal and practical issues with using the "old" Bundestag to either reform the constitutional debt brake, or create a special defence fund exempt from the debt brake (both of which require a 2 thirds majority).
tldr: there aren't any real legal problems (though an attempt could be made to delay things beyond the 25th March deadline when the new Bundestag has to start).
However there are practical issues, especially with trying to reform the debt brake as there is no agreement on how to reform it. A special defence fund would be a lot simpler.
Friedrich Merz wants to use the majorities of the old Bundestag to mobilize funds for national defense. It is an act of desperation that only Merz himself could have avoided."
It’s apparently okay if you're an alleged rapist and people trafficker as long you can “ own the libs “ and can get released because of pressure from the Trump administration.
One small consolation is that he is still subject to recall by Romania to face potential charges. So with any luck will stay way from Europe for fear of arrest, and remain in Florida, which is welcome to him along with their existing assortment of undesirables.
The UK could ask for his extradition from the USA which will be met with a big fat no ! The deportation agreement seems to be one of the US asks the UK says yes. The other way around we get told to get lost .
Actually, to this point, everyone we’ve asked for extradition under the current treaty, has been extradited.
In a number of cases, US requests to the U.K. have been turned down, by the courts.
And we will just get a rant about not extraditing Assange to the US.
Comments
The Greek telephone system hack should have been a wake up call.
The other big question is what will Sadiq Khan do? IF he decides not to run again and goes for a London constituency (East Ham perhaps on the retirement of Stephen Timms?), Labour will have to find a new candidate and while that may help offset the anti-Sadiq vote, it will still be interesting to see who might be in the runners and riders (Newham Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz?).
The Conservatives will be hoping to avoid the disaster of the last primary - might ex-MP Paul Scully be tempted to have another go?
That's even before we consider other parties and the fact the Mayoral election isn't until 2028 which might conceivably be General Election day.
You have been selected to join the great Illuminati to be a member of this family; You have found favor in the eyes of the Great Creator and hence this noble invitation to be a member of the Elite Family.
https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/i-want-my-country-back-my-latest?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=1mnpci&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-27/indonesia-to-lift-iphone-16-ban-as-apple-secures-agreement/104855174
It once threatened to pull out of the UK market over a patent dispute, but didn't:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/07/11/apple-attorneys-threaten-uk-market-exit-if-court-orders-unacceptable-patent-fees
Apple makes a shedload of money in the UK. Not just through phone sales but also because of the kickback it gets from the apps it hosts.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/13/apple-uk-app-store-class-action-fee-competition-appeal-tribunal
:
Goodwin would have more of a point if he just attacked centrist politicians but his references to a big-P Project make him sound a deranged conspiracy theorist. He could also do with some speaking lessons to vary his monotone.
ETA and ‘if you invited an architect into your home...’ lacks the Faragesque common touch. Who the flip has architects remodelling their home?
We wondered what, if any advantage there had been to most of us from the Tories de-nationalisation programme.
A few people have, of course, got very rich, but what about the rest of us?
"Wanting our country back" to us would be the return of all the assets sold off. And as a small example, someone here mentioned that many ex-Council houses were now rented out.
They are small in number, many more to Reform.
They are larger in number in Lib Dem constituencies, unsurprisingly.
They mostly voted for Brexit.
They hold 'Conservative' opinions - death penalty, lower immigration, tougher sentences, pro Brexit (but lighter), conservative values on culture wars.
Stopped voting Conservatives due to lack of competency.
Why did they vote Lib Dem? It's just a protest vote really.
https://x.com/jamesbreckwoldt/status/1895053160567198074
Of course it'd be moths that do the night pollination as well, I presume.
A massive net negative in the case of the monopolies which became private monopolies.
Housing is more complicated.
The policy might have been fine if it hadn't been used as a means to take assets from local government, and take the proceeds by central government.
The policy in reality was a short term success, and slow burn long term disaster.
They might, they might not.
The truth is if you look at the places where the Liberal Democrats thrashed the Conservatives last July (I'll mention Chichester, Harpenden & Berkhamsted and Tewkesbury to name but three) all were built on progress at local level and the ability of the LDs to clearly identify as the main channel for a successful anti-Conservative vote.
Last July was the election where people actively and in large numbers chose to no longer support the Conservative Party - voting LD, Labour, Reform, Green etc was one way of doing that, abstaining was another. Oddly enough, those Tories who stayed at home rather than actively voting for another party probably ensured the Conservatives survived as the second party in the Commons rather than falling to third.
As to where these "Conservative" voters will go at the next election, impossible to know at this time. Whether Badenoch is the leader who will bring them "back into the fold" is again impossible to know at this time.
Many of those constituencies which voted LD in 1997 remained in the LD camp until the disaster of 2015 - whether this tranche of newly elected Liberal Democrat MPs will prove easier to shift is another of the many imponderables around at the moment.
I agree with you about housing though. Looked great (to some anyway) at first but now .......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LVkJ-jhjXY
It's fairly pure nativism imo, and quite JDVance-like. The appeal is to "this man proves it with facrs and statistic", but there;s plenty of fiction in there - including the Chicken Nugget story.
I'd say he's positioning himself to be alongside the Famous Five.
Explains a lot. I never win anything.
I don't think we picked that up while we were canvassing and I am in one of those typical Surrey seats. However evidence to support what you report is that although our knock up data was generally accurate (I only knocked up one Conservative and no others out of several hundred), I did knock up Reform voters, a dozen or so. So a fair number who said they would vote for us (presumably to punish the Tories) went out and voted Reform. On that basis presumably there were more who were so inclined but stuck to switching to the LDs
@hyufd has the more traditional view (Remainer, socially liberal, middle class) of the switchers in LD/Tory marginals in places like Surrey and Oxford and I was inclined to think it was a bit of both. I would be interested in his views, following your report.
https://jamesbreckwoldt.substack.com/p/2019-conservative-to-2024-lib-dem?r=p26bo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
I would have thought if he assaults anyone else in the next 10 years he should be serving this sentence on top of the one for the next.
And I'm not disagreeing with your views either.
The numbers are surprisingly small. Important in certain constituencies, but still small. Most ex-Con voters, did not go to LD, not even remotely.
Do I think the small numbers that did will revert back to Conservatives? Not until they start to look competent again. That will take some time and I don't know if they will or not.
I also don't think they are really LD voters. I wouldn't be surprised if they switched to Reform as the next protest vote.
Of course we could also see from the Lib Dems vote Tory get Reform if it seems they’d need a coalition with them .
https://x.com/jamesbreckwoldt/status/1895053160567198074
Almost half of Conservative-to-Lib Dem switchers (48%) support bringing back the death penalty!
RIP Baron Denning.
"Elizabeth line strike action suspended
"The planned strike action affecting Elizabeth line services on Thursday 27 February and Saturday 1, Saturday 8 and Monday 10 March has been suspended.
Elizabeth line services are expected to run as normal on these days."
And then you have finally judicially decided liability that can be enforced in multiple international markets
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
The UK constitutional settlement is delicately balanced on the fiction that the government is the Crown.
If the government demanded stuff from the Crown by right then it upends the whole thing. Far better for the government to say “I say old chap, terribly sorry, it’s a bit awkward, but would you mind donating 25% of your pre-tax profits to the state. Help us out a bit, you see.”
So with any luck will stay way from Europe for fear of arrest, and remain in Florida, which is welcome to him along with their existing assortment of undesirables.
Public asked for views on how to fix the water industry
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g097mpl79o
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
Any other ideas?
Do you really think that international lawfare of the type you advocate is a good idea then?
To reiterate the point - what the U.K. government is trying for is demanding Apple, not in the U.K., handover data they don’t have access to (and is held in another jurisdiction) on the grounds that it involves a U.K. legal matter.
Does he have any recourse to re-appeal?
Key point is a good one though. Many of us are making the assumption these switchers will stay with the Lib Dems at the next election. This assumption hasn't been tested.
Alternatively if people are allowed to own these dogs and walk around with them I want the right to carry a gun
One or the other
"Cabinet officers, who had brought notes for the statements they expected to make, sat silent, while Musk, the unelected billionaire from South Africa who put more than a quarter of a billion dollars into electing Trump, spoke more than anyone except Trump himself. Trump didn’t turn to Vice President J.D. Vance until 56 minutes into the meeting, and Vance spoke for only 36 seconds."
Apart from some completely unforeseeable accidents. When he eats estate agents and XL Bully owners.
This only happens once or twice a week and is always the other parties fault.
This was predicted and should never have been allowed to happen.
The US now needs to step up. We have an extradition treaty with them and they need to cooperate fully.
The Tate brothers stand accused of rape and human trafficking in the UK and must face our justice system.
I did point out this piece at the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/19/the-rise-of-the-cane-corso-should-this-popular-status-dog-be-banned-in-the-uk
No point in banning breeds if (a) you don't do it properly, and (b) they can easily be replaced by the canine equivalent of a rebadge.
In a number of cases, US requests to the U.K. have been turned down, by the courts.
A wise person would realise that he has been fairly fortunate to get a suspension, and also that he is not at this moment well suited for a continuing career as an MP.
For example, everything being equal, I prefer to buy products made in democratic or friendly nations (preferably both). So, for example, I avoid products made in "Emperor" Xi's nation, when I can.
I suspect I am not alone in that kind of consumer choice, since I frequently see efforts by companies to brand the products as at least partly American, for example by putting "packaged in the United States" on their products.
(Amazon keeps asking me to rate products; I have been wondering whether they would accept me deducting points for those political reasons -- and saying so.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/27/opinion/trump-hegseth-pentagon.html#
An unusual addition to the Weybridge biota till it got caught. Rather sad that it was only two feet long, mind.
https://andyhill03.wixsite.com/doylycarteisland/doyly-cartes-crocodile
Dale Vince 1 - Guido Dorks 0
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/guido-fawkes-settles-dale-vince-libel-claim-to-avoid-ruinous-costs/
Bill payers are basically being told they need to pay to rebuild the capital base of the industry, for the benefit of the private owners who have destroyed it over the last couple of decades.
The owners will then demand a "commercial rate of return" on the capital base WE have paid for.
Some are already taking legal action to demand higher bills than the increases the regulator has already granted. Taking the piss.
The entire system stinks, and I think the public should say so. Loudly.
it's already unclear whether that's still the case, after the recent firings and hirings.
I don't want American corporations deciding what our laws should be in this country anymore than I want the European Union doing it.
https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/sondervermoegen-schuldenbremse-bundeswehr-grundgesetz-verfassungsrecht-umgehung-bundestag-alter-neuer
In German but machine translation works OK.
tldr: there aren't any real legal problems (though an attempt could be made to delay things beyond the 25th March deadline when the new Bundestag has to start).
However there are practical issues, especially with trying to reform the debt brake as there is no agreement on how to reform it. A special defence fund would be a lot simpler.
Spiegel has an article on Merz's approach
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/sondervermoegen-der-bundeswehr-diese-falle-hat-sich-friedrich-merz-selbst-gestellt-a-21428c75-d080-4f72-a8fa-141f13974cb4
"Merz set this trap for himself
Friedrich Merz wants to use the majorities of the old Bundestag to mobilize funds for national defense. It is an act of desperation that only Merz himself could have avoided."