Howdy, Stranger!

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

A Letter To The New German Chancellor – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,766

    FF43 said:

    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.

    https://x.com/jamesbreckwoldt/status/1895053160567198074

    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?
    Think the important point about ideology for Con to LD switchers is that LD liberalism wasn't sufficiently off-putting to prevent them giving their vote to them. At the same time the ideology being pushed by Conservatives now doesn't encourage them to stick with the party despite perceived incompetence.

  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,155
    In other German legal news, Merz has been criticised for inviting Netanyahu and promising to make sure he wouldn't be arrested. Apparently making sure he isn't arrested would be illegal.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,742

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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.
    What if, god forbid, these really are the best of a really rum bunch and the ones not put forward are even worse?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,047
    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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

    https://x.com/JamesCleverly/status/1894661350321778715
    Cleverly isn't the answer.

    He was invisible in the last leadership contest, and had nothing of interest to say.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    kamski said:

    In other German legal news, Merz has been criticised for inviting Netanyahu and promising to make sure he wouldn't be arrested. Apparently making sure he isn't arrested would be illegal.

    Netanyahu has lots of experience of being arrested already.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,155

    kamski said:

    In other German legal news, Merz has been criticised for inviting Netanyahu and promising to make sure he wouldn't be arrested. Apparently making sure he isn't arrested would be illegal.

    Netanyahu has lots of experience of being arrested already.
    But probably doesn't fancy being hauled off to the ICC
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,329

    MattW said:

    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.

    Backkground: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvn90pl5no

    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.
    The scenario I am talking about is a court order to hand over data, not a government request
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,313
    Carnyx said:

    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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.

    https://andyhill03.wixsite.com/doylycarteisland/doyly-cartes-crocodile
    My logic lecturer at Uni had (as good as makes no difference) a full sized crocodile in his room.

    It was stuffed and he was as nutty as a fruit cake.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,935
    kamski said:

    In other German legal news, Merz has been criticised for inviting Netanyahu and promising to make sure he wouldn't be arrested. Apparently making sure he isn't arrested would be illegal.

    Wouldnt he have diplomatic immunity?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,461

    MattW said:

    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.

    Backkground: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvn90pl5no

    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.
    The scenario I am talking about is a court order to hand over data, not a government request
    Same thing - do you really want to try to extend court jurisdiction into other countries?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,047
    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,925
    edited February 27



    nico67 said:

    Nigelb said:

    nico67 said:

    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 .
    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1895090511603773834

    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.
    I also suspect Jenrick can sniff where the zeitgeist is heading: Trump and his regime as global leper.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,047
    nico67 said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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.
    They all believe it, right up to the point where the dog attacks one of their own.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,155

    kamski said:

    In other German legal news, Merz has been criticised for inviting Netanyahu and promising to make sure he wouldn't be arrested. Apparently making sure he isn't arrested would be illegal.

    Wouldnt he have diplomatic immunity?
    No, and neither would Putin if he visited Germany...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,142

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    Because it's dog racism to blame the breed.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,047
    DavidL said:

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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.
    What if, god forbid, these really are the best of a really rum bunch and the ones not put forward are even worse?
    There are MPs like Jeremy Hunt, Damian Hinds etc that are still in there.

    But, yes, I accept it's a rum bunch.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,047

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    Because it's dog racism to blame the breed.
    Probably something in that joke.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,881

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    Yes, it’s moved me from firm approval of the RSPCA - I mean, who doesn’t naturally approve of this - to deep suspicion of them if not aversion. They would literally rather people get mauled horrifically to death than see a “breed specific ban”

    OK then, how about we ban all dogs bigger than a cocker spaniel unless you have a £2000 licence? - job done, no breed specificity there. Creeps
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,313

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    I agree. Our dog is very very friendly (ridiculously so) and is not a particularly big dog (13 kg), but I would never leave him alone with a baby.

    He is also very well trained and knows loads of commands, but he is also very wilful and the temptation to do something can and does sometimes exceed his willingness to obey a command.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    If Trump cuts Ukraine/Europe loose, this is likely to become a bigger problem.

    Patriot games: How America is outgunning Europe on air defense
    The Patriot and SAMP/T air defense systems look similar on paper but the U.S-made tech is selling much better.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/us-patriot-defeat-europe-sampt-air-defense-volodymyrzelenskyy/

    The UK has virtually no medium to long range ground based anti aircraft capability, except on a handful of Type 45 frigates.
    We do produce the shorter range CAMM family of missiles, but again have have only limited numbers.

    Replacing Patriot with the next generation version of SAMP/T could be a part of the response to any Trump tariffs. We should be part of that program.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,907
    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,925
    It's amazing how the Right is divided over Trump as the Left was with Stalin.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,927

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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

    https://x.com/JamesCleverly/status/1894661350321778715
    Cleverly isn't the answer.

    He was invisible in the last leadership contest, and had nothing of interest to say.
    Nope. The one (potential) advantage the Tories have over Reform is that they have 100+ MPs and can look like an alternative government-in-waiting. But they need a leader who voters can imagine occupying Number 10. Cleverly has the experience and the presentational skills to do that. So would Mordaunt if she gets back into the Commons. Kemi, alas, so far, seems a bit lacking at the moment.

    This is an area of weakness for Reform which may, ultimately, cost them. Nigel Farage as Prime Minister? Really?

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,142

    It's amazing how the Right is divided over Trump as the Left was with Stalin.

    Is there a Trotsky in this analogy?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,935
    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    To be fair, most could probably do a better job as President of the United States.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,927
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    Yes, it’s moved me from firm approval of the RSPCA - I mean, who doesn’t naturally approve of this - to deep suspicion of them if not aversion. They would literally rather people get mauled horrifically to death than see a “breed specific ban”

    OK then, how about we ban all dogs bigger than a cocker spaniel unless you have a £2000 licence? - job done, no breed specificity there. Creeps
    They've also managed to fall out with big-name supporters like Chris Packham. They seem to be badly led and unprofessional.

    I have to say that I wince sometimes at the way anthropomorphism influences things so much. We spend more on pets charities than we do on wildlife conservation. Pretty grotesque. Cockapoos will inherit the earth.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,606

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    It's not the RSPCA that is the problem but the legislation passed, or not passed, by the previous government, which is not working. Very odd that our right wingers seek to blame the RSPCA instead.

    The fact is that all breeds are potentially dangerous - albeit some more than others through temperament or physical size and strength; and individual temperamwent and training on top of that.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,606
    edited February 27
    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    Recent? It's been a thing for a long time, for whatever reason in each case.

    But I take your point. Perhaps what seems more salient in recent years is the sort of anthropomorphism and infantilisation that you used to get in Los Angeles or NYC. Birthday presents for pooches, restaurants for pooches etc.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,240

    It's amazing how the Right is divided over Trump as the Left was with Stalin.

    To be fair Trump won an election against an opposing party candidate unlike Stalin
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,240

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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

    https://x.com/JamesCleverly/status/1894661350321778715
    Cleverly isn't the answer.

    He was invisible in the last leadership contest, and had nothing of interest to say.
    Not for UK Tory leader no but he he is probably the best candidate to beat Khan for the London Mayoralty in much more liberal London
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,827
    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,925

    It's amazing how the Right is divided over Trump as the Left was with Stalin.

    Is there a Trotsky in this analogy?
    Not yet. But when it happens it'll probably be JD Vance.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295
    MattW said:
    I see their defence was they were sharing an "honest" opinion. Whatever that means.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,927
    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    Recent? It's been a thing for a long time, for whatever reason in each case.

    But I take your point. Perhaps what seems more salient in recent years is the sort of anthropomorphism and infantilisation that you used to get in Los Angeles or NYC. Birthday presents for pooches, restaurants for pooches etc.
    Just look at all the dog-walking businesses and dog parlours there are now. And the supermarket aisles dedicated to pets. Quite extraordinary. A not insignificant economic sector. Cheaper than kids, I guess.
  • CJohnCJohn Posts: 75

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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.
    I have never met a member of the right-wing intellegentsia who hasn't spoken with eloquence of their love of the lower orders and chavs, moreover praising their wise hound choices.

    Surely, this is the defining characteristic of your right-wing
    intellectual?

    The Guardian are just confused: it happens.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,606

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    Recent? It's been a thing for a long time, for whatever reason in each case.

    But I take your point. Perhaps what seems more salient in recent years is the sort of anthropomorphism and infantilisation that you used to get in Los Angeles or NYC. Birthday presents for pooches, restaurants for pooches etc.
    Just look at all the dog-walking businesses and dog parlours there are now. And the supermarket aisles dedicated to pets. Quite extraordinary. A not insignificant economic sector. Cheaper than kids, I guess.
    Dog-walking has a rationale, like vets bills, in terms of keeping pooch sane and happy an dhealthy. And so do *some* dog parlour appointments - some breeds need to be clipped for health (but why buy them in the first place?). It may be the rise in non-moulting dogs?

    But that's not nearly a sufficient explanation.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,672

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    MattW said:

    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.

    Backkground: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvn90pl5no

    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"


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/02/09/uk-willing-rework-online-harms-bill-avoid-trump-tariffs/

    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:

    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


    :





    The issue this time is that the UK law threatens their global operation. In the end it's a bad law and I think the government will have to reverse it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,003
    edited February 27
    kinabalu said:

    MattW said:
    I see their defence was they were sharing an "honest" opinion. Whatever that means.
    Settled for £9,995 + costs. Wonder what "costs" are. More than £10,000 I expect.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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!'

    Odious from Cummings. Why does he talk like this? Doers he think it's sharp and funny?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,606
    CJohn said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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.
    I have never met a member of the right-wing intellegentsia who hasn't spoken with eloquence of their love of the lower orders and chavs, moreover praising their wise hound choices.

    Surely, this is the defining characteristic of your right-wing
    intellectual?

    The Guardian are just confused: it happens.
    It's also woerth bearting in mind that *any* dog control legislation not confined to XLBs would affect the Barbour and green wellies and flat-coated labrador* constituency as well as the elderly pensioner with a pooch. Which may have had something to do with the last government's approach.

    *Hardly a problem breed in themselves, though ...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,461
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    Yes, it’s moved me from firm approval of the RSPCA - I mean, who doesn’t naturally approve of this - to deep suspicion of them if not aversion. They would literally rather people get mauled horrifically to death than see a “breed specific ban”

    OK then, how about we ban all dogs bigger than a cocker spaniel unless you have a £2000 licence? - job done, no breed specificity there. Creeps
    Insurance

    No third party insurance - dog put down, big fine.

    “But the insurance company wants a premium of £1m for my beloved Bubbles…..”
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,240
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    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.

    https://x.com/jamesbreckwoldt/status/1895053160567198074

    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?
    Think the important point about ideology for Con to LD switchers is that LD liberalism wasn't sufficiently off-putting to prevent them giving their vote to them. At the same time the ideology being pushed by Conservatives now doesn't encourage them to stick with the party despite perceived incompetence.

    On the latest Yougov Kemi has made net gains from Reform since the GE in terms of percentage of party support, with 6% of 2024 LDs now switching to the Tories and 4% of 2024 Tories going LD. 5% of 2024 Labour voters are now Tory voters but only 1% of 2024 Tories now back Labour.

    However she has leaked more to Reform with 20% of 2024 Tories now backing Farage's party and only 4% of 2024 Reform voters going Reform

    https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/VotingIntention_MRP_250224_w.pdf
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,606

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    Yes, it’s moved me from firm approval of the RSPCA - I mean, who doesn’t naturally approve of this - to deep suspicion of them if not aversion. They would literally rather people get mauled horrifically to death than see a “breed specific ban”

    OK then, how about we ban all dogs bigger than a cocker spaniel unless you have a £2000 licence? - job done, no breed specificity there. Creeps
    Insurance

    No third party insurance - dog put down, big fine.

    “But the insurance company wants a premium of £1m for my beloved Bubbles…..”
    And in turn de facto or de jure dog licensing. Like with that other lethal weapon beloved of the journalistic establishment, the motor car.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,240
    edited February 27
    Pulpstar said:

    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 ?

    RIP Baron Denning.

    To be fair I think the Crown Court judge said the sentence was right but should have been suspended. He also added 200 hours of community service and an anger management course which probably made more sense on the facts.

    As the sentence was suspended Amesbury can still be recalled as an MP, though as it was not immediate custody for over a year he cannot be removed as an MP now
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,313
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    Recent? It's been a thing for a long time, for whatever reason in each case.

    But I take your point. Perhaps what seems more salient in recent years is the sort of anthropomorphism and infantilisation that you used to get in Los Angeles or NYC. Birthday presents for pooches, restaurants for pooches etc.
    Just look at all the dog-walking businesses and dog parlours there are now. And the supermarket aisles dedicated to pets. Quite extraordinary. A not insignificant economic sector. Cheaper than kids, I guess.
    Dog-walking has a rationale, like vets bills, in terms of keeping pooch sane and happy an dhealthy. And so do *some* dog parlour appointments - some breeds need to be clipped for health (but why buy them in the first place?). It may be the rise in non-moulting dogs?

    But that's not nearly a sufficient explanation.
    Ours is a Sproddle so doesn't moult. This means no cleaning up of hairs which is a pain and (I don't know why this is) he is very soft to the touch as they all seem to be if non moulting, which is very nice. This does mean he needs grooming which is £60 every 6 weeks.

    When we look after other people's dog which moult we are cleaning up for weeks after.

    We do send him to socialise with other dogs once a week, which he loves, but that does rather make you think why bother in the first place. After all we have paid to have him and then pay to send him away for the day.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295
    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,240

    Mike Amesbury has his prison sentence suspended for 2 years following an appeal

    Expect a lot of two tier sentencing comments. Actual violence vs tweets.
    Most abusive tweeters got community service and suspended sentence orders too
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,313
    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    Much to my surprise they are a great way to meet people.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 2,071

    FPT: I would suggest that the number of birds that die from actually contacting wind turbine blades is very small.

    They are already dead by the time they make contact.

    What kills birds (and onshore, bats) is the pressure wave that moves in front of the blades. That pressure wave bursts their lungs. So the colour of the blades really doesnt matter.

    Not according to the studies - see my previous comment.
    Compared to say, (allegedly) domesticated cats?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,240
    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    They already are illegal to have as a pet without a licence now
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,155
    It's a bit of a niche interest, but pb.com is the one place to talk about minor-ish issues with voting systems:

    https://verfassungsblog.de/wahlkreissieger-ohne-bundestagssitz/

    Discusses the new problem of 'unfortunate winners' who won their constituency, but because their party has already won enough constituencies to cover their 2nd vote seat allocation in that Bundesland, they do not get a seat.

    This has now led to 15 candidates from the CDU, four from the AfD, three from the CSU and one from the SPD - despite winning the first votes in the constituency - not entering the Bundestag. This is precisely what the electoral law reform is intended to do.

    The new law has also led to 'orphaned constituencies' that are not represented by their own MP.

    It should be made clear in advance that the constituencies in which the "constituency winners" do not get a chance due to a lack of second vote coverage are not necessarily empty, but will often be represented by list candidates - as was the case with Trier or Frankfurt after this federal election. However, there are also constituencies that send neither a constituency candidate nor a list candidate to the Bundestag, for example Darmstadt or the constituencies of Stuttgart II, Lörrach-Müllheim and Tübingen.

    I suggest that in future this issue should be called the "Lörrach-Müllheim Question"
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    They already are illegal to have as a pet without a licence now
    Ok. But say nobody could have one as a pet, ie a total ban. What would happen to the breed?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,249
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    Yes, it’s moved me from firm approval of the RSPCA - I mean, who doesn’t naturally approve of this - to deep suspicion of them if not aversion. They would literally rather people get mauled horrifically to death than see a “breed specific ban”

    OK then, how about we ban all dogs bigger than a cocker spaniel unless you have a £2000 licence? - job done, no breed specificity there. Creeps
    In my experience, their behaviour in probate cases is highly acquisitive.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,461
    Carnyx said:

    CJohn said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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.
    I have never met a member of the right-wing intellegentsia who hasn't spoken with eloquence of their love of the lower orders and chavs, moreover praising their wise hound choices.

    Surely, this is the defining characteristic of your right-wing
    intellectual?

    The Guardian are just confused: it happens.
    It's also woerth bearting in mind that *any* dog control legislation not confined to XLBs would affect the Barbour and green wellies and flat-coated labrador* constituency as well as the elderly pensioner with a pooch. Which may have had something to do with the last government's approach.

    *Hardly a problem breed in themselves, though ...
    Errr… the issue is that certain breeds eat people. On a moderately regular basis.

    This then upsets people because *all* dogs are not controlled in some way.

    It just like the unfairness of the government banning my totally reasonable ownership of critical masses of plutonium while allowing people to buy toilet cleaner without any kind of check.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,827
    edited February 27
    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    It would get put down. XL bully attacks made up half of all those in the UK and that makes them the most dangerous dog by far given there’s still relatively few compared to other breeds .

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,249
    kinabalu said:

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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!'

    Odious from Cummings. Why does he talk like this? Doers he think it's sharp and funny?
    Cummings is a P o S. He just wants to watch the world burn.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,329

    MattW said:

    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.

    Backkground: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvn90pl5no

    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.
    The scenario I am talking about is a court order to hand over data, not a government request
    Same thing - do you really want to try to extend court jurisdiction into other countries?
    I want the courts to be respected and their judgements to be enforceable.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,313
    edited February 27
    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    I'm not sure many people would care if the breed died out. I have only seen one in real life once and it looked very scary.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,912
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    Yes, it’s moved me from firm approval of the RSPCA - I mean, who doesn’t naturally approve of this - to deep suspicion of them if not aversion. They would literally rather people get mauled horrifically to death than see a “breed specific ban”

    OK then, how about we ban all dogs bigger than a cocker spaniel unless you have a £2000 licence? - job done, no breed specificity there. Creeps
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    They already are illegal to have as a pet without a licence now
    should be hunted down and exterminated, along with dumb owners.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,461
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    Yes, it’s moved me from firm approval of the RSPCA - I mean, who doesn’t naturally approve of this - to deep suspicion of them if not aversion. They would literally rather people get mauled horrifically to death than see a “breed specific ban”

    OK then, how about we ban all dogs bigger than a cocker spaniel unless you have a £2000 licence? - job done, no breed specificity there. Creeps
    In my experience, their behaviour in probate cases is highly acquisitive.
    What about other breeds of spaniel? Are they inheritance hunters?

    Seriously - in at least one case, the RSPCA threatened an independent animal rescue centre with legal harassment - unless they became part of the RSPCA.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,142
    kamski said:

    It's a bit of a niche interest, but pb.com is the one place to talk about minor-ish issues with voting systems:

    https://verfassungsblog.de/wahlkreissieger-ohne-bundestagssitz/

    Discusses the new problem of 'unfortunate winners' who won their constituency, but because their party has already won enough constituencies to cover their 2nd vote seat allocation in that Bundesland, they do not get a seat.

    This has now led to 15 candidates from the CDU, four from the AfD, three from the CSU and one from the SPD - despite winning the first votes in the constituency - not entering the Bundestag. This is precisely what the electoral law reform is intended to do.

    The new law has also led to 'orphaned constituencies' that are not represented by their own MP.

    It should be made clear in advance that the constituencies in which the "constituency winners" do not get a chance due to a lack of second vote coverage are not necessarily empty, but will often be represented by list candidates - as was the case with Trier or Frankfurt after this federal election. However, there are also constituencies that send neither a constituency candidate nor a list candidate to the Bundestag, for example Darmstadt or the constituencies of Stuttgart II, Lörrach-Müllheim and Tübingen.

    I suggest that in future this issue should be called the "Lörrach-Müllheim Question"

    The German system has so many oddities. You have a 5% threshold but there's a Good Friday Agreement style arrangement for certain minorities that means the South Schleswig Voters Association get a seat with 76k votes, but Sahra Wagenknecht doesn't with nearly 2.5 million.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,912
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    They already are illegal to have as a pet without a licence now
    Ok. But say nobody could have one as a pet, ie a total ban. What would happen to the breed?
    they are a mongrel breed anyway and as ugly as sin , be no loss whatsoever.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,935
    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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!'

    Odious from Cummings. Why does he talk like this? Doers he think it's sharp and funny?
    Cummings is a P o S. He just wants to watch the world burn.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/03/dominic-cummings-labour-questions-russia-links

    "Was Cummings questioned about the purpose of his three-year period of work in post-communist Russia between 1994 and 1997, including relationships with figures in Russian politics, intelligence and security?"
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,249

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    Yes, it’s moved me from firm approval of the RSPCA - I mean, who doesn’t naturally approve of this - to deep suspicion of them if not aversion. They would literally rather people get mauled horrifically to death than see a “breed specific ban”

    OK then, how about we ban all dogs bigger than a cocker spaniel unless you have a £2000 licence? - job done, no breed specificity there. Creeps
    In my experience, their behaviour in probate cases is highly acquisitive.
    What about other breeds of spaniel? Are they inheritance hunters?

    Seriously - in at least one case, the RSPCA threatened an independent animal rescue centre with legal harassment - unless they became part of the RSPCA.
    It's a case of "to the pure, all things are pure."
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,142
    Interesting news regarding the PKK:

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ocalan-dissolve-pkk-historic-statement

    Abdullah Ocalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), has called on the group he founded to lay down its arms and disband in a historic statement shared by pro-Kurdish politicians on Thursday.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,461
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    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?
    It's a real mystery to me why the RSPCA are modelling themselves on the NRA with the same "dogs don't kill people; people (through bad care/training) kill people" argument.
    Yes, it’s moved me from firm approval of the RSPCA - I mean, who doesn’t naturally approve of this - to deep suspicion of them if not aversion. They would literally rather people get mauled horrifically to death than see a “breed specific ban”

    OK then, how about we ban all dogs bigger than a cocker spaniel unless you have a £2000 licence? - job done, no breed specificity there. Creeps
    In my experience, their behaviour in probate cases is highly acquisitive.
    What about other breeds of spaniel? Are they inheritance hunters?

    Seriously - in at least one case, the RSPCA threatened an independent animal rescue centre with legal harassment - unless they became part of the RSPCA.
    It's a case of "to the pure, all things are pure."
    Noble Cause Corruption is the official police term for it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,461

    Interesting news regarding the PKK:

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ocalan-dissolve-pkk-historic-statement

    Abdullah Ocalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), has called on the group he founded to lay down its arms and disband in a historic statement shared by pro-Kurdish politicians on Thursday.

    Big news for Turkey and its relationships in Europe, if this works out.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,240
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    They already are illegal to have as a pet without a licence now
    Ok. But say nobody could have one as a pet, ie a total ban. What would happen to the breed?
    Those still around would be put down unless the RSPCA took some on
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,155

    kamski said:

    It's a bit of a niche interest, but pb.com is the one place to talk about minor-ish issues with voting systems:

    https://verfassungsblog.de/wahlkreissieger-ohne-bundestagssitz/

    Discusses the new problem of 'unfortunate winners' who won their constituency, but because their party has already won enough constituencies to cover their 2nd vote seat allocation in that Bundesland, they do not get a seat.

    This has now led to 15 candidates from the CDU, four from the AfD, three from the CSU and one from the SPD - despite winning the first votes in the constituency - not entering the Bundestag. This is precisely what the electoral law reform is intended to do.

    The new law has also led to 'orphaned constituencies' that are not represented by their own MP.

    It should be made clear in advance that the constituencies in which the "constituency winners" do not get a chance due to a lack of second vote coverage are not necessarily empty, but will often be represented by list candidates - as was the case with Trier or Frankfurt after this federal election. However, there are also constituencies that send neither a constituency candidate nor a list candidate to the Bundestag, for example Darmstadt or the constituencies of Stuttgart II, Lörrach-Müllheim and Tübingen.

    I suggest that in future this issue should be called the "Lörrach-Müllheim Question"

    The German system has so many oddities. You have a 5% threshold but there's a Good Friday Agreement style arrangement for certain minorities that means the South Schleswig Voters Association get a seat with 76k votes, but Sahra Wagenknecht doesn't with nearly 2.5 million.
    It's not that odd. The 5% threshold is there to stop too many different parties entering the Bundestag, so it's doing the job it was designed to do.

    Interesting that you mention the Putin-friendly BSW, but you aren't bothered by the anti-Putin FDP missing out again.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,406
    edited February 27
    kjh said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    Recent? It's been a thing for a long time, for whatever reason in each case.

    But I take your point. Perhaps what seems more salient in recent years is the sort of anthropomorphism and infantilisation that you used to get in Los Angeles or NYC. Birthday presents for pooches, restaurants for pooches etc.
    Just look at all the dog-walking businesses and dog parlours there are now. And the supermarket aisles dedicated to pets. Quite extraordinary. A not insignificant economic sector. Cheaper than kids, I guess.
    Dog-walking has a rationale, like vets bills, in terms of keeping pooch sane and happy an dhealthy. And so do *some* dog parlour appointments - some breeds need to be clipped for health (but why buy them in the first place?). It may be the rise in non-moulting dogs?

    But that's not nearly a sufficient explanation.
    Ours is a Sproddle so doesn't moult. This means no cleaning up of hairs which is a pain and (I don't know why this is) he is very soft to the touch as they all seem to be if non moulting, which is very nice. This does mean he needs grooming which is £60 every 6 weeks.

    When we look after other people's dog which moult we are cleaning up for weeks after.

    We do send him to socialise with other dogs once a week, which he loves, but that does rather make you think why bother in the first place. After all we have paid to have him and then pay to send him away for the day.
    My Portuguese Podengo Pequeno is a short-haired breed, and I am a real convert. He barely sheds, just needing a bit of a brush in the spring-time, and after a muddy walk he wipes clean with a couple of paper towels. No grooming bills. A lovely affectionate breed, apart from objecting to small rapidly moving mammals like squirrels and enemy cats.

    Here he is with cat for scale.




  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295
    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    I'm not sure many people would care if the breed died out. I have only seen one in real life once and it looked very scary.
    Probably not. But it would die out, would it? That's what I'm wondering. Eg could it not live on in the wild?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295
    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    They already are illegal to have as a pet without a licence now
    Ok. But say nobody could have one as a pet, ie a total ban. What would happen to the breed?
    they are a mongrel breed anyway and as ugly as sin , be no loss whatsoever.
    Well their looks are in the eye of the beholder. I happen to agree with you but some people will find them attractive.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,935
    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    I'm not sure many people would care if the breed died out. I have only seen one in real life once and it looked very scary.
    Probably not. But it would die out, would it? That's what I'm wondering. Eg could it not live on in the wild?
    Could have them in a zoo.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,142
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    It's a bit of a niche interest, but pb.com is the one place to talk about minor-ish issues with voting systems:

    https://verfassungsblog.de/wahlkreissieger-ohne-bundestagssitz/

    Discusses the new problem of 'unfortunate winners' who won their constituency, but because their party has already won enough constituencies to cover their 2nd vote seat allocation in that Bundesland, they do not get a seat.

    This has now led to 15 candidates from the CDU, four from the AfD, three from the CSU and one from the SPD - despite winning the first votes in the constituency - not entering the Bundestag. This is precisely what the electoral law reform is intended to do.

    The new law has also led to 'orphaned constituencies' that are not represented by their own MP.

    It should be made clear in advance that the constituencies in which the "constituency winners" do not get a chance due to a lack of second vote coverage are not necessarily empty, but will often be represented by list candidates - as was the case with Trier or Frankfurt after this federal election. However, there are also constituencies that send neither a constituency candidate nor a list candidate to the Bundestag, for example Darmstadt or the constituencies of Stuttgart II, Lörrach-Müllheim and Tübingen.

    I suggest that in future this issue should be called the "Lörrach-Müllheim Question"

    The German system has so many oddities. You have a 5% threshold but there's a Good Friday Agreement style arrangement for certain minorities that means the South Schleswig Voters Association get a seat with 76k votes, but Sahra Wagenknecht doesn't with nearly 2.5 million.
    It's not that odd. The 5% threshold is there to stop too many different parties entering the Bundestag, so it's doing the job it was designed to do.

    Interesting that you mention the Putin-friendly BSW, but you aren't bothered by the anti-Putin FDP missing out again.
    "Anti-Putin"? I suppose it's all relative when talking about German politics...

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/17/questions-over-german-ministerial-hopefuls-links-to-russian-pipeline

    An email seen by the Guardian links Nord Stream 2 lobbying to the deputy leader of the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP), Wolfgang Kubicki, throwing into doubt cross-party claims of a “more critical” attitude towards the contentious energy deal in a potential three-party coalition alongside Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats and the Greens.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/vice-president-of-the-german-parliament-calls-for-activation-of-nord-stream-2/

    Germany should allow the blocked Nord Stream 2 pipeline to begin pumping Russian natural gas so "people do not have to freeze in winter and that our industry does not suffer serious damage,” Wolfgang Kubicki, vice president of the German parliament, said Friday.

    His comments prompted a fierce response from Kyiv, where Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said "addiction to Russian gas kills."
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,249

    kamski said:

    It's a bit of a niche interest, but pb.com is the one place to talk about minor-ish issues with voting systems:

    https://verfassungsblog.de/wahlkreissieger-ohne-bundestagssitz/

    Discusses the new problem of 'unfortunate winners' who won their constituency, but because their party has already won enough constituencies to cover their 2nd vote seat allocation in that Bundesland, they do not get a seat.

    This has now led to 15 candidates from the CDU, four from the AfD, three from the CSU and one from the SPD - despite winning the first votes in the constituency - not entering the Bundestag. This is precisely what the electoral law reform is intended to do.

    The new law has also led to 'orphaned constituencies' that are not represented by their own MP.

    It should be made clear in advance that the constituencies in which the "constituency winners" do not get a chance due to a lack of second vote coverage are not necessarily empty, but will often be represented by list candidates - as was the case with Trier or Frankfurt after this federal election. However, there are also constituencies that send neither a constituency candidate nor a list candidate to the Bundestag, for example Darmstadt or the constituencies of Stuttgart II, Lörrach-Müllheim and Tübingen.

    I suggest that in future this issue should be called the "Lörrach-Müllheim Question"

    The German system has so many oddities. You have a 5% threshold but there's a Good Friday Agreement style arrangement for certain minorities that means the South Schleswig Voters Association get a seat with 76k votes, but Sahra Wagenknecht doesn't with nearly 2.5 million.
    5% is quite a high threshold, but given the problems that Weimar had with multiple tiny parties, it's fair enough.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295
    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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!'

    Odious from Cummings. Why does he talk like this? Doers he think it's sharp and funny?
    Cummings is a P o S. He just wants to watch the world burn.
    I'm just not getting the brain chemistry. He's bright and (presumably) has a nice enough nature, deep down, yet he talks in this stupid "ooo look at what a badass I am" kind of way all the time. But I guess I'm not his target audience.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,925
    kinabalu said:

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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!'

    Odious from Cummings. Why does he talk like this? Doers he think it's sharp and funny?
    I suspect Cummings is angling for a big role in a post-Farage Reform, and he thinks that sounding off like a low-rent Musk is the way to achieve this. The question is: is he just dreaming, or are serious attempts to involve him going on behind the scenes?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,658
    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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!'

    Odious from Cummings. Why does he talk like this? Doers he think it's sharp and funny?
    Cummings is a P o S. He just wants to watch the world burn.
    I'm just not getting the brain chemistry. He's bright and (presumably) has a nice enough nature, deep down, yet he talks in this stupid "ooo look at what a badass I am" kind of way all the time. But I guess I'm not his target audience.
    If he was remotely up to his own reckoning he would be quietly running an efficient and outstanding government from a small back office in 10 Downing Street at this very day. Unlike so many others he actually had the opportunity to do what he said he could.
  • scampi25scampi25 Posts: 40

    MattW said:

    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.

    Backkground: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvn90pl5no

    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.
    The scenario I am talking about is a court order to hand over data, not a government request
    Same thing - do you really want to try to extend court jurisdiction into other countries?
    I want the courts to be respected and their judgements to be enforceable.
    Naive to think a UK court's writ can run beyond the UK border. If the USA say no end of story unless you want to declare war .
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295
    Foxy said:

    kjh said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    Recent? It's been a thing for a long time, for whatever reason in each case.

    But I take your point. Perhaps what seems more salient in recent years is the sort of anthropomorphism and infantilisation that you used to get in Los Angeles or NYC. Birthday presents for pooches, restaurants for pooches etc.
    Just look at all the dog-walking businesses and dog parlours there are now. And the supermarket aisles dedicated to pets. Quite extraordinary. A not insignificant economic sector. Cheaper than kids, I guess.
    Dog-walking has a rationale, like vets bills, in terms of keeping pooch sane and happy an dhealthy. And so do *some* dog parlour appointments - some breeds need to be clipped for health (but why buy them in the first place?). It may be the rise in non-moulting dogs?

    But that's not nearly a sufficient explanation.
    Ours is a Sproddle so doesn't moult. This means no cleaning up of hairs which is a pain and (I don't know why this is) he is very soft to the touch as they all seem to be if non moulting, which is very nice. This does mean he needs grooming which is £60 every 6 weeks.

    When we look after other people's dog which moult we are cleaning up for weeks after.

    We do send him to socialise with other dogs once a week, which he loves, but that does rather make you think why bother in the first place. After all we have paid to have him and then pay to send him away for the day.
    My Portuguese Podengo Pequeno is a short-haired breed, and I am a real convert. He barely sheds, just needing a bit of a brush in the spring-time, and after a muddy walk he wipes clean with a couple of paper towels. No grooming bills. A lovely affectionate breed, apart from objecting to small rapidly moving mammals like squirrels and enemy cats.

    Here he is with cat for scale.


    Your cat looks quite like my cat.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,257

    kjh said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    Much to my surprise they are a great way to meet people.
    Indeed. Many years ago one of my best friends, an inveterate charmer and womaniser, sadly deceased now, reckons most of his conquests occurred when he was able to borrow his sister's labrador. He'd sit around with the dog, usually outside pubs, and just wait for young women to come and say hello to the dog, whereupon he'd wheel out his corny, but for some reason highly successful, chat-up lines, and all would flow from there.
    I then got a dog. But it didn't work for me.
    My parents had, at one time, a Labrador, a soft and gentle animal which wouldn't, anyone felt, harm a fly. However one year our company (founded by my mother) was hosting a Dutch exchange student and I took her to meet the company founder and chairperson, at my parents house.
    The hitherto peaceful and gentle Labrador lunged at the poor student, snarling and growling. Fortunately we were able to grab the animal's collar and shut it in another room, where it could still be heard growling.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,925
    edited February 27
    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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!'

    Odious from Cummings. Why does he talk like this? Doers he think it's sharp and funny?
    Cummings is a P o S. He just wants to watch the world burn.
    I'm just not getting the brain chemistry. He's bright and (presumably) has a nice enough nature, deep down, yet he talks in this stupid "ooo look at what a badass I am" kind of way all the time. But I guess I'm not his target audience.
    If he was remotely up to his own reckoning he would be quietly running an efficient and outstanding government from a small back office in 10 Downing Street at this very day. Unlike so many others he actually had the opportunity to do what he said he could.
    He would argue that he was thwarted by Princess Nut Nut.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295

    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    I'm not sure many people would care if the breed died out. I have only seen one in real life once and it looked very scary.
    Probably not. But it would die out, would it? That's what I'm wondering. Eg could it not live on in the wild?
    Could have them in a zoo.
    You could, I suppose. But I think for them to have a long term future they'd need to find their place in the wild. Perhaps the New Forest.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,658

    kjh said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    Much to my surprise they are a great way to meet people.
    Indeed. Many years ago one of my best friends, an inveterate charmer and womaniser, sadly deceased now, reckons most of his conquests occurred when he was able to borrow his sister's labrador. He'd sit around with the dog, usually outside pubs, and just wait for young women to come and say hello to the dog, whereupon he'd wheel out his corny, but for some reason highly successful, chat-up lines, and all would flow from there.
    I then got a dog. But it didn't work for me.
    Because that XL Bully was the wrong dog? Stick to Labradors.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,240
    NEW: We asked Americans who they think is America’s biggest ally

    The UK is top. No other European country breaks 10%

    🇬🇧 UK: 43%
    🇨🇦 Canada: 24%
    🇫🇷 France: 6%
    🇷🇺 Russia: 6%
    🇨🇳 China: 5%
    🇩🇪 Germany: 4%
    🇲🇽 Mexico: 4%
    🇺🇦 Ukraine: 3%

    https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1895081278115860698
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,461
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    I'm not sure many people would care if the breed died out. I have only seen one in real life once and it looked very scary.
    Probably not. But it would die out, would it? That's what I'm wondering. Eg could it not live on in the wild?
    Could have them in a zoo.
    You could, I suppose. But I think for them to have a long term future they'd need to find their place in the wild. Perhaps the New Forest.
    Where dogs have gone feral, the breeds mix rapidly. The gone-wild populations of domestic dogs are all mongrels.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,155
    edited February 27

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    It's a bit of a niche interest, but pb.com is the one place to talk about minor-ish issues with voting systems:

    https://verfassungsblog.de/wahlkreissieger-ohne-bundestagssitz/

    Discusses the new problem of 'unfortunate winners' who won their constituency, but because their party has already won enough constituencies to cover their 2nd vote seat allocation in that Bundesland, they do not get a seat.

    This has now led to 15 candidates from the CDU, four from the AfD, three from the CSU and one from the SPD - despite winning the first votes in the constituency - not entering the Bundestag. This is precisely what the electoral law reform is intended to do.

    The new law has also led to 'orphaned constituencies' that are not represented by their own MP.

    It should be made clear in advance that the constituencies in which the "constituency winners" do not get a chance due to a lack of second vote coverage are not necessarily empty, but will often be represented by list candidates - as was the case with Trier or Frankfurt after this federal election. However, there are also constituencies that send neither a constituency candidate nor a list candidate to the Bundestag, for example Darmstadt or the constituencies of Stuttgart II, Lörrach-Müllheim and Tübingen.

    I suggest that in future this issue should be called the "Lörrach-Müllheim Question"

    The German system has so many oddities. You have a 5% threshold but there's a Good Friday Agreement style arrangement for certain minorities that means the South Schleswig Voters Association get a seat with 76k votes, but Sahra Wagenknecht doesn't with nearly 2.5 million.
    It's not that odd. The 5% threshold is there to stop too many different parties entering the Bundestag, so it's doing the job it was designed to do.

    Interesting that you mention the Putin-friendly BSW, but you aren't bothered by the anti-Putin FDP missing out again.
    "Anti-Putin"? I suppose it's all relative when talking about German politics...

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/17/questions-over-german-ministerial-hopefuls-links-to-russian-pipeline

    An email seen by the Guardian links Nord Stream 2 lobbying to the deputy leader of the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP), Wolfgang Kubicki, throwing into doubt cross-party claims of a “more critical” attitude towards the contentious energy deal in a potential three-party coalition alongside Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats and the Greens.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/vice-president-of-the-german-parliament-calls-for-activation-of-nord-stream-2/

    Germany should allow the blocked Nord Stream 2 pipeline to begin pumping Russian natural gas so "people do not have to freeze in winter and that our industry does not suffer serious damage,” Wolfgang Kubicki, vice president of the German parliament, said Friday.

    His comments prompted a fierce response from Kyiv, where Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said "addiction to Russian gas kills."
    Unlike you and the BSW, the FDP is in favour of supporting Ukraine, as you well know. Although the FDP are generally a bunch of opportunistic arseholes.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295

    kinabalu said:

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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!'

    Odious from Cummings. Why does he talk like this? Doers he think it's sharp and funny?
    I suspect Cummings is angling for a big role in a post-Farage Reform, and he thinks that sounding off like a low-rent Musk is the way to achieve this. The question is: is he just dreaming, or are serious attempts to involve him going on behind the scenes?
    I'd say if he wants it he'll be welcomed and given his chance. He is, after all, the man who came up with Take Back Control. Whatever the future holds for him that can never be taken away.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,606
    edited February 27
    algarkirk said:

    kjh said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    Much to my surprise they are a great way to meet people.
    Indeed. Many years ago one of my best friends, an inveterate charmer and womaniser, sadly deceased now, reckons most of his conquests occurred when he was able to borrow his sister's labrador. He'd sit around with the dog, usually outside pubs, and just wait for young women to come and say hello to the dog, whereupon he'd wheel out his corny, but for some reason highly successful, chat-up lines, and all would flow from there.
    I then got a dog. But it didn't work for me.
    Because that XL Bully was the wrong dog? Stick to Labradors.
    Or maybe it was a Mexican Hairless? Or Xoloitzcuintli.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,606

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    I'm not sure many people would care if the breed died out. I have only seen one in real life once and it looked very scary.
    Probably not. But it would die out, would it? That's what I'm wondering. Eg could it not live on in the wild?
    Could have them in a zoo.
    You could, I suppose. But I think for them to have a long term future they'd need to find their place in the wild. Perhaps the New Forest.
    Where dogs have gone feral, the breeds mix rapidly. The gone-wild populations of domestic dogs are all mongrels.
    IN fact the XLB is a mongrel in itself - albeit trying to be a breed. Like many breeds, come to think of it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,836
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic, on the economics I agree with Robert. The cure to the lack of growth in Germany is to increase their domestic demand, not run up ever larger surpluses. Economically, it will be easy to offset the effect of the tariffs and then some by doing that very unGerman thing of running deficits. The real risk to their economy is the challenges Merz faces in overcoming debt limits so he can do that.

    Politically, its a different story. The pressure of the EU as a whole to respond will be immense, not least from some countries such as France, that already run trade deficits. The EU also has an overinflated view of its own importance. There is also the risk of becoming a punch bag for Trump who is an arrogant bully. Responding threatens further retaliation but so does not responding if he finds, as Robert suggests, that the effect is minimal. Having had a free hit he will try something else confident that the recipient will once again just take it like the victim of a school yard bully.

    The more important response, as Merz has already said, will be to reduce the links between the US and Europe in defence, the supply of strategic services (such as in IT) and in political terms. They are no longer a reliable friend. All of Europe, including us, must act accordingly.

    Agreed.

    Europe - and the UK - need to come to the same realisation that's just occurred to Leon.
    Without technological near parity with either/both China and/or the US, then our options to determine our own futures are quite heavily constrained.
    It is possibly too late for the EU/UK to reach tech parity with the US or China

    One of the big two - probably both? - will go FOOM soon and then they will be so far out of reach the attempt to catch up will be futile

    That said, once the robots are really ruling the world, they might turn Beijing and Washington into gloop, just for the lolz, so it won't matter. Such are the unique properties of an Event Horizon
    Baby steps. Build a few datacentres dotted around the country and use them to host BritCloud (or ScotCloud etc) and then migrate all government systems off of Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure and the other American clouds. Then market BritCloud to local businesses, and even privatise it down the road. All this is old technology but you can expand it to AI if you like.

    On AI, again much of the pioneering work was done here but DeepMind was sold to Google. One of its boffins, Demis Hassabis, won a Nobel Prize for AI-powered protein folding. Oh, and we've just cancelled Edinburgh's supercomputer.
    I just read Supremacy - about the "battle" between Hassabis and Altman to reach AGI

    I believe @rcs1000 knows Duke Demis of Datashire? Both studied comp tech at the Poly?

    Anyway it's an interesting book if not quite as good as the FT's hysteria suggests, and it makes it painfully clear that the UK had a real lead in AI thanks to DeepMind (and a couple of smaller companies) - more than any other European nation, for sure

    Was there a way we might have saved them from being swallowed by Google? Interestingly, Elon Musk lobbied the UK and others to prevent that sale, figuring it would give Google too much concentrated AI power....

    In another steampunk world Britain is home to five tech giants and we can now order the Chinese to give us Formosa or we cut off their banking
    I do know Demis, and used to know him very well, although I haven't seen him since I moved to California.

    I know him from when I was the probably the top video game investment banker in Europe, and he had a video game company (that he started in his teens) called Elixir.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,658

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Cummings has a prediction about the Tory leadership:

    https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1894719592129343971

    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

    https://x.com/JamesCleverly/status/1894661350321778715
    Cleverly isn't the answer.

    He was invisible in the last leadership contest, and had nothing of interest to say.
    Nope. The one (potential) advantage the Tories have over Reform is that they have 100+ MPs and can look like an alternative government-in-waiting. But they need a leader who voters can imagine occupying Number 10. Cleverly has the experience and the presentational skills to do that. So would Mordaunt if she gets back into the Commons. Kemi, alas, so far, seems a bit lacking at the moment.

    This is an area of weakness for Reform which may, ultimately, cost them. Nigel Farage as Prime Minister? Really?

    The state of Tory play is truly odd. Just a couple of days ago they led in a poll, by 1 point (MIC). But, IMO, it is also the case that they are in realistic danger of disappearing as a serious party, much more danger than Lab, LD, SNP or even Reform.

    Reason? I may be wrong but it seems to me that almost all their sustained support is 'legacy' or 'heritage' support - from those older people who still would vote for them because they always have done. Like going to Clacton for your holidays.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,925
    HYUFD said:

    NEW: We asked Americans who they think is America’s biggest ally

    The UK is top. No other European country breaks 10%

    🇬🇧 UK: 43%
    🇨🇦 Canada: 24%
    🇫🇷 France: 6%
    🇷🇺 Russia: 6%
    🇨🇳 China: 5%
    🇩🇪 Germany: 4%
    🇲🇽 Mexico: 4%
    🇺🇦 Ukraine: 3%

    https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1895081278115860698

    That's quite surprising, given the smear tactics the likes of Vance and Musk have been employing against the UK in recent times.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    nico67 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    There's something slightly unhealthy about the recent attitude of a lot of people towards dogs. It's almost as if they're using them to replace human companions, instead of as an additional companion to humans.

    I don’t think people were being anti-dog . But clearly those XL bully’s present a continued danger to people disproportionately compared to their numbers.
    What would happen to the XL bully if it became illegal to have as a pet?
    I'm not sure many people would care if the breed died out. I have only seen one in real life once and it looked very scary.
    Probably not. But it would die out, would it? That's what I'm wondering. Eg could it not live on in the wild?
    Could have them in a zoo.
    You could, I suppose. But I think for them to have a long term future they'd need to find their place in the wild. Perhaps the New Forest.
    Probably not intended to be offensive but suggesting that people could let their unwanted pooches loose on regulated Common Land is deeply worrying and probably worrying as well. It would be an offence and you would be liable for the damage your dog caused. Oh and the dog would quite rightly be shot.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,005
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    It's a bit of a niche interest, but pb.com is the one place to talk about minor-ish issues with voting systems:

    https://verfassungsblog.de/wahlkreissieger-ohne-bundestagssitz/

    Discusses the new problem of 'unfortunate winners' who won their constituency, but because their party has already won enough constituencies to cover their 2nd vote seat allocation in that Bundesland, they do not get a seat.

    This has now led to 15 candidates from the CDU, four from the AfD, three from the CSU and one from the SPD - despite winning the first votes in the constituency - not entering the Bundestag. This is precisely what the electoral law reform is intended to do.

    The new law has also led to 'orphaned constituencies' that are not represented by their own MP.

    It should be made clear in advance that the constituencies in which the "constituency winners" do not get a chance due to a lack of second vote coverage are not necessarily empty, but will often be represented by list candidates - as was the case with Trier or Frankfurt after this federal election. However, there are also constituencies that send neither a constituency candidate nor a list candidate to the Bundestag, for example Darmstadt or the constituencies of Stuttgart II, Lörrach-Müllheim and Tübingen.

    I suggest that in future this issue should be called the "Lörrach-Müllheim Question"

    The German system has so many oddities. You have a 5% threshold but there's a Good Friday Agreement style arrangement for certain minorities that means the South Schleswig Voters Association get a seat with 76k votes, but Sahra Wagenknecht doesn't with nearly 2.5 million.
    It's not that odd. The 5% threshold is there to stop too many different parties entering the Bundestag, so it's doing the job it was designed to do.

    Interesting that you mention the Putin-friendly BSW, but you aren't bothered by the anti-Putin FDP missing out again.
    "Anti-Putin"? I suppose it's all relative when talking about German politics...

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/17/questions-over-german-ministerial-hopefuls-links-to-russian-pipeline

    An email seen by the Guardian links Nord Stream 2 lobbying to the deputy leader of the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP), Wolfgang Kubicki, throwing into doubt cross-party claims of a “more critical” attitude towards the contentious energy deal in a potential three-party coalition alongside Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats and the Greens.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/vice-president-of-the-german-parliament-calls-for-activation-of-nord-stream-2/

    Germany should allow the blocked Nord Stream 2 pipeline to begin pumping Russian natural gas so "people do not have to freeze in winter and that our industry does not suffer serious damage,” Wolfgang Kubicki, vice president of the German parliament, said Friday.

    His comments prompted a fierce response from Kyiv, where Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said "addiction to Russian gas kills."
    Unlike you and the BSW, the FDP is in favour of supporting Ukraine, as you well know. Although the FDP are generally a bunch of opportunistic arseholes.
    Genscher was OK, quite a while back now.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,005
    HYUFD said:

    NEW: We asked Americans who they think is America’s biggest ally

    The UK is top. No other European country breaks 10%

    🇬🇧 UK: 43%
    🇨🇦 Canada: 24%
    🇫🇷 France: 6%
    🇷🇺 Russia: 6%
    🇨🇳 China: 5%
    🇩🇪 Germany: 4%
    🇲🇽 Mexico: 4%
    🇺🇦 Ukraine: 3%

    https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1895081278115860698

    Russia?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,836

    The header is at least arguably reasonable from an economic viewpoint, but unwise from a political viewpoint. The US needs to feel that further sanctions would be uncomfortable.

    Here's the thing (morning all!), the sanctions will probably negatively affect the US more than the EU. They will raise the cost of the US reindustrialising, they will raise consumer prices, while probably having only a very modest effect on the EU's exports.

    So why get into a pissing contest? Instead, just ignore Trump and the US, and get on with raising Eurozone domestic demand.
  • MattW said:

    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.

    Backkground: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yvn90pl5no

    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.
    I'm with @StillWaters on this

    I don't want American corporations deciding what our laws should be in this country anymore than I want the European Union doing it.
    They are not deciding. They are simply making clear that they will not operate here if this law is enforced. It is entirely up to us if we decide we must enforce it. But if we do then our own public - at least those who use Apple and whatever other systems that also follow this route - are the ones who will suffer.

    The fact that the law is stupid and authoritarian is of course an additional reason why it should not be in place but the idea that anyone, whether a business or an individual, must be forced to continue to operate under laws it considers both impossible to adhere to and fundamentally bad is utterly ludicrous. Apple are at liberty to say no and withdraw their services and personally I hope they do so. I will enjoy seeing the backlash against the Government.
This discussion has been closed.