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.
That would be too mundane. He seems to think he's in a Quentin Tarantino film, the way he talks. It's quite adolescent. That's how he comes over to me anyway, but I confess I haven't spent an awful lot of time with his Substack.
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.
Do Americans buy so much stuff from each other and the world because they have so much money or do they have money (In the round) because they all buy so much stuff from each other (And a large trade deficit) ?
Another alleged XL bully attacks kills a 19 year old woman in Bristol .
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
Well said
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
Any other ideas?
The other idea might be that The Graun is not actively campaigning to “save these dogs” and that you have in fact done a Trump there: Don't like the facts? Well, make up some you do like.
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?
Well that is quite a leap of logic there. We are talking about whether or not painting wind turbines prevents bird deaths. It does. The studies show this.
And I am not sure too many cats have been wiping out sea eagle populations, which was the problem in Norway which led to the studies in the first place.
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.
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.
I suspect that 'sister's' is the critical point. A dog that is used to thinking that the woman is boss will go down very well with the ladies. Seen it with a friend whose dog thought his wife is the alpha, erm, person in the pack, at least in terms of how the dog behaved when his wife came home from work - and how it was extremely relaxed with visitors - not in terms of philandering!
The EU has a surplus with the US in traded goods mostly offset by a deficit in services. The EU is the US' most important market in digital services. The EU has been regulating these services in ways the US doesn't like.
If Trump's tariffs were purely pressure to achieve a desired result, the EU could offer something on digital services to get them removed. But Trump seems to think tariffs are desirable in themselves. They reduce imports and deliver revenue. In which case the EU would do better to remove its economic dependency on the US to the detriment of all, but particularly the US. Everyone else is trying to do the same thing of course.
This is correct. Trump thinks that he can get rid of regular taxes, and replace them with tariffs, which (in his mind) will be paid by foreigners.
Pew research asked an open-ended question in 2023 and got:
"Around a fifth of Americans (22%) name the United Kingdom as their country’s most important ally. This is nearly four times the share who name America’s northern neighbor, Canada (6%). Fewer name Israel (4%), Germany (3%), China (2%), Japan (2%), the EU (1%), France (1%), Mexico (1%) or Russia (1%)."
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.
The EU has a surplus with the US in traded goods mostly offset by a deficit in services. The EU is the US' most important market in digital services. The EU has been regulating these services in ways the US doesn't like.
If Trump's tariffs were purely pressure to achieve a desired result, the EU could offer something on digital services to get them removed. But Trump seems to think tariffs are desirable in themselves. They reduce imports and deliver revenue. In which case the EU would do better to remove its economic dependency on the US to the detriment of all, but particularly the US. Everyone else is trying to do the same thing of course.
This is correct. Trump thinks that he can get rid of regular taxes, and replace them with tariffs, which (in his mind) will be paid by foreigners.
"Thinks" is a rather generous verb to use in conjunction with Trump.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Apple has withdrawn the facility in question from the British market.
I understand. The interesting question is what happens if a UK citizen in the US uses the facility and the UK courts request the data.
If British courts request the data, and American courts do not intervene, then Apple cannot provide the data because it is encrypted in such a way that Apple cannot decrypt it. That is a key point. What Britain is demanding is that it should not have been strongly encrypted in the first place. (This also might be taken as meaning Britain is telling American companies to weaken security for Americans, because it cannot tell whether a customer is American or British in America.)
IANAL but I don’t believe that “I can’t” is a sufficient defence against a court order especially as Apple has demonstrated in advance by withdrawing the product from the UK market that it is not willing to comply with the law.
What is your point? It is mathematically impossible and if you think a British court can overpower the government of the United States (and mathematics) then I've got a bridge to sell you. And that is betting without American courts nixing any warrant served on Apple.
Then the courts can hold Apple UK in contempt.
And Apple withdraw from the UK. There is an inevitablility about this that you don't seem to comprehend.
Of course. But a legal judgement can be enforced in other countries.
Of course it’s not going to get that far.
Apple not providing a back door has been legally judged in the US as their right. All the way to the Supreme Court.
So any attempt to go after Apple US in the courts, by the U.K., will fall on constitutional grounds.
The point is you get them for contempt of court in the UK.
And then you have finally judicially decided liability that can be enforced in multiple international markets
Imagine the Chinese government decide that a British company has broken Chinese law by not giving them data on someone they, the Chinese government don’t like.
Do you really think that international lawfare of the type you advocate is a good idea then?
To reiterate the point - what the U.K. government is trying for is demanding Apple, not in the U.K., handover data they don’t have access to (and is held in another jurisdiction) on the grounds that it involves a U.K. legal matter.
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 .
It is interesting the security services have gone for Apple, presumably my stuff with WhatsApp, Google, Dropbox is just as safe. It is a battle that is worthless and shows the stupidity of the government that they can't see that. Get a VPN and go abroad virtually. Hide your shit over there.
Do you think the Security Services are doing this to make Cooper look even more stupid than someone who married her husband could look already ?
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.
I'd actually like to see "ignore Trump" adopted as a general policy by other countries. Don't take that call. Don't go to DC. Don't invite him anywhere. Freeze him out. Get him off the news.
Pew research asked an open-ended question in 2023 and got:
"Around a fifth of Americans (22%) name the United Kingdom as their country’s most important ally. This is nearly four times the share who name America’s northern neighbor, Canada (6%). Fewer name Israel (4%), Germany (3%), China (2%), Japan (2%), the EU (1%), France (1%), Mexico (1%) or Russia (1%)."
Pew research asked an open-ended question in 2023 and got:
"Around a fifth of Americans (22%) name the United Kingdom as their country’s most important ally. This is nearly four times the share who name America’s northern neighbor, Canada (6%). Fewer name Israel (4%), Germany (3%), China (2%), Japan (2%), the EU (1%), France (1%), Mexico (1%) or Russia (1%)."
Pew research asked an open-ended question in 2023 and got:
"Around a fifth of Americans (22%) name the United Kingdom as their country’s most important ally. This is nearly four times the share who name America’s northern neighbor, Canada (6%). Fewer name Israel (4%), Germany (3%), China (2%), Japan (2%), the EU (1%), France (1%), Mexico (1%) or Russia (1%)."
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.
No, I didn't mean it in that way. What we're trying to work out is how the XL bully can have a viable future once it can't be a pet. What's the best way to do that?
Pew research asked an open-ended question in 2023 and got:
"Around a fifth of Americans (22%) name the United Kingdom as their country’s most important ally. This is nearly four times the share who name America’s northern neighbor, Canada (6%). Fewer name Israel (4%), Germany (3%), China (2%), Japan (2%), the EU (1%), France (1%), Mexico (1%) or Russia (1%)."
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.
No, I didn't mean it in that way. What we're trying to work out is how the XL bully can have a viable future once it can't be a pet. What's the best way to do that?
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.
Ah ok. So it can only be a pet then otherwise it'll disappear. It can only be a pet but it's not suitable to be a pet. That's a tough hand to play. Glad I'm not an XL bully.
Cummings is quite interesting but a bit of mystery. He seems good at analysing a problem, exceptional at campaign management. But less good at diagnosing a cause or implementing a cure. He also comes across as a massive chopper.
David Cameron wasn’t a fan. I seem to recall his view was that he was a career psychopath or something. Seems to fit.
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.
One thing I have learned in my near five decades on this earth is that some people are just c*nts.
Cummings is quite interesting but a bit of mystery. He seems good at analysing a problem, exceptional at campaign management. But less good at diagnosing a cause or implementing a cure. He also comes across as a massive chopper.
David Cameron wasn’t a fan. I seem to recall his view was that he was a career psychopath or something. Seems to fit.
I was once on a plane to the US at the same time as him, and he was a bit of a dick to the stewardess.
Watching CNN just now (in BKK) I got a tiny tiny twinge of sympathy for Skyr Toolmakersson, and even a flicker of patriotic hope that he can talk sense to the Donald on Ukraine. Yes, Europe can step up, but the USA needs to assist in the interim
And I HATE Starmer and always will and if he folds on Chagos as he wants OMFG
Nonetheless if Starmer can elicit a hint of empathy from me I wonder if Labour might get a modest patriotic poll-boost, albeit short term
Another alleged XL bully attacks kills a 19 year old woman in Bristol .
These dogs should be rounded up and put down without delay .
Well said
Incredibly, the one newspaper that is seriously campaigning to “save these dogs” and repeal the XL Bully law is…. The Guardian
Yes
They run about an article a month saying the law is bad and wrong - then about a fortnight later they have to run a sheepish news item admitting the dogs have killed again
wtf? I pride myself on working out editorial slants esp when they are confounding but this one is bizarre, i mean XL bully owners are not guardian readers
Il down to
1. The editor herself owns one of these hellhounds
2. The guardian is secretly financed by the RSPCA (which has itself been captured by people that hate breed specific laws)
Any other ideas?
The other idea might be that The Graun is not actively campaigning to “save these dogs” and that you have in fact done a Trump there: Don't like the facts? Well, make up some you do like.
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.
No, I didn't mean it in that way. What we're trying to work out is how the XL bully can have a viable future once it can't be a pet. What's the best way to do that?
It doesn't have a future. It ends.
Yes. They all need to end. All these insane killer dogs
They can be replaced by AI dogs (in the very near future) which will never attack innocent humans
Watching CNN just now (in BKK) I got a tiny tiny twinge of sympathy for Skyr Toolmakersson, and even a flicker of patriotic hope that he can talk sense to the Donald on Ukraine. Yes, Europe can step up, but the USA needs to assist in the interim
And I HATE Starmer and always will and if he folds on Chagos as he wants OMFG
Nonetheless if Starmer can elicit a hint of empathy from me I wonder if Labour might get a modest patriotic poll-boost, albeit short term
"..the melancholy god protect thee; and the tailor make thy doublet of changeable taffeta, for thy mind is a very opal."
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.
No, I didn't mean it in that way. What we're trying to work out is how the XL bully can have a viable future once it can't be a pet. What's the best way to do that?
It doesn't have a future. It ends.
Ok. And per Malmesbury even if they survive in the wild they will cross breed and become something else. So this question of a total ban or not is (literally) existential for them.
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.
Ah ok. So it can only be a pet then otherwise it'll disappear. It can only be a pet but it's not suitable to be a pet. That's a tough hand to play. Glad I'm not an XL bully.
They originate in dogs bred to attack BULLS for bull baiting (in England - hence "pit bull terrier"). ie these are dogs that will attack, and attack, and attack almost without any thought for their own survival. Hence their insane aggression and tenacity, they will cling on in a bite with their crazy big jaws even as the bull wildly swings around, trying to fling them away
Now multiply these psycho tendencies over generations of inbreeding by drugged up hillbillies in Appalachia and add ever more muscle and ferocity, and you end up with a monster of a killer dog, wired to maul almost anything to death, multiple mental issues, and with no obvious way of restraining them. Note that the dogs in a recent near-fatal attack had to be be shot NINETEEN TIMES before they quit chewing
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.
One thing I have learned in my near five decades on this earth is that some people are just c*nts.
I know, I know. You're right. It's good to try and find other explanations but sometimes you just can't.
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…..”
This is the correct answer. And it isn't even close. Let the free market solve the problem for you.
Watching CNN just now (in BKK) I got a tiny tiny twinge of sympathy for Skyr Toolmakersson, and even a flicker of patriotic hope that he can talk sense to the Donald on Ukraine. Yes, Europe can step up, but the USA needs to assist in the interim
And I HATE Starmer and always will and if he folds on Chagos as he wants OMFG
Nonetheless if Starmer can elicit a hint of empathy from me I wonder if Labour might get a modest patriotic poll-boost, albeit short term
Agree with that. IDS is correct in his assessment, I fear. The distinction between territory and sovereignty is crucial to understanding this. Putin will definitely be back. From The Guardian:
During a debate on Ukraine, Duncan Smith said:
The idea that just meeting Putin’s demand for territory - that he may have got or not - at the moment somehow will appease him and will satisfy his requirements is, I think, a completely wrong judgement.
I noticed in a telephone call between President Trump and Putin this is what President Trump said was important. The truth is Putin is an ex-KGB man. Once KGB, always KGB.
He’s not interested in territory, he’s interested in sovereignty.
He added:
What we have to get lined up in here is the real nature of what Putin wants, and it’s not territory, it’s sovereignty.
He wants to recreate and has always wanted to recreate the full borders of the old Soviet Union in a greater Russia, we know that. And Ukraine isn’t about 20% of their territory, for him it’s all of Ukraine.
So you have a peace deal which isn’t stable, he will be back.
He’ll build up his armed forces, which he can do quite quickly now with the support of people like North Korea, and he will be back in double quick time.
Just got a letter from my mother's care home; from April the fees are increasing by an extra £14,000 per year, mostly due to cost increases from the minimum wage and Labour's extra NI
Watching CNN just now (in BKK) I got a tiny tiny twinge of sympathy for Skyr Toolmakersson, and even a flicker of patriotic hope that he can talk sense to the Donald on Ukraine. Yes, Europe can step up, but the USA needs to assist in the interim
And I HATE Starmer and always will and if he folds on Chagos as he wants OMFG
Nonetheless if Starmer can elicit a hint of empathy from me I wonder if Labour might get a modest patriotic poll-boost, albeit short term
Agree with that. IDS is correct in his assessment, I fear. The distinction between territory and sovereignty is crucial to understanding this. Putin will definitely be back. From The Guardian:
During a debate on Ukraine, Duncan Smith said:
The idea that just meeting Putin’s demand for territory - that he may have got or not - at the moment somehow will appease him and will satisfy his requirements is, I think, a completely wrong judgement.
I noticed in a telephone call between President Trump and Putin this is what President Trump said was important. The truth is Putin is an ex-KGB man. Once KGB, always KGB.
He’s not interested in territory, he’s interested in sovereignty.
He added:
What we have to get lined up in here is the real nature of what Putin wants, and it’s not territory, it’s sovereignty.
He wants to recreate and has always wanted to recreate the full borders of the old Soviet Union in a greater Russia, we know that. And Ukraine isn’t about 20% of their territory, for him it’s all of Ukraine.
So you have a peace deal which isn’t stable, he will be back.
He’ll build up his armed forces, which he can do quite quickly now with the support of people like North Korea, and he will be back in double quick time.
Brexit was an object lesson in the irrational passions that sovereignty ignites.
Cummings is quite interesting but a bit of mystery. He seems good at analysing a problem, exceptional at campaign management. But less good at diagnosing a cause or implementing a cure. He also comes across as a massive chopper.
David Cameron wasn’t a fan. I seem to recall his view was that he was a career psychopath or something. Seems to fit.
I don't think he is that good at day-to-day campaign management. I persist in believing that Leave would have one a bigger margin (that would have included taking the Highland region in Scotland, greatly easing the political fallout that followed the outcome) had the Vote Leave campaign been better.
He is very good tactically I think. His masterminding of the dissolution of parliament followed by the Get Brexit Done election was extraordinary. Sadly they replaced the ousted wets with a load more, and the rest is history.
Just got a letter from my mother's care home; from April the fees are increasing by an extra £14,000 per year, mostly due to cost increases from the minimum wage and Labour's extra NI
I worried about Russia at 6% and then saw China at 5% and thought even Magas don't think that. I think 5% and under you can dismiss as idiots and time wasters out for a laugh.
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.
One of our dogs was killed in front of us by a XL bully type dog. Very traumatic. We had the whole incident on CCTV (2 different camera angles) and were advised by the vets that due to the severity of the attack, we should report the matter to the police. Police investigated and said as it was dog-on-dog there was nothing to be done. We took advice on a civil claim though insurance. Same answer.
What people think should happen and what does happen (legally) are very different. Laws can't solve all the problem of people being arses and not training/controlling their dogs.
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.
One of our dogs was killed in front of us by a XL bully type dog. Very traumatic. We had the whole incident on CCTV (2 different camera angles) and were advised by the vets that due to the severity of the attack, we should report the matter to the police. Police investigated and said as it was dog-on-dog there was nothing to be done. We took advice on a civil claim though insurance. Same answer.
What people think should happen and what does happen (legally) are very different. Laws can't solve all the problem of people being arses and not training/controlling their dogs.
This Tulsi Gabbard one is weird, from a regime that have just handed over much of the USA citizens' private data to an unlawfully appointed oligarch.
ISTM that making citizens' data never-accessible for criminal investigation (the Apple position), and getting into a strop about it, is strange. The US Head of National Intelligence security defending the privacy rights of child abusers and terrorists is not what I would expect.
Plus there's the old Usonian problem of assuming the US Govt has the right to direct the entire world as to what their laws should be, as if the US Govt defines the privacy rights entitlement of their citizens in other jurisdictions:
In a letter, Ms Gabbard said she was seeking further information from the FBI and other US agencies and said, if the reports were true, the UK government's actions amounted to an "egregious violation" of US citizens' privacy. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kjmddx2nzo
I'd say the debate needs to be around what level of approval is required before access can be ordered - whether "Home Office", "Chief Constable", "High Court Judge", or some other.
The row with America was predicted on pb. Indignant talk of America dictating privacy entitlements around the world misses that is precisely what Britain is doing, or is seeking to do.
Not at all.
Britain is saying that a court order grants access to information
Think about the mechanism by which Apple can access that information, and you will see the problem. If it is effectively encrypted then Apple cannot decrypt it, and therefore cannot comply. Britain is seeking to ban strong (ie effective) encryption.
And what is wrong with that?
Sidestepping whether it is good or bad, the diplomatic problem is Britain is telling American companies to weaken their security (and in a way that would be hard to confine to British customers).
If Apple wants to operate in the UK it has to obey UK law. What’s wrong with that?
Trump has just told us to go fuck ourselves with the new Online Safety Act, because it will impinge on US tech giants
Result? We are yielding
"UK willing to renegotiate online harm laws to avoid Trump tariffs
Starmer may be prepared to alter social media safety Act to accommodate US president and his ‘tech bros’ to secure favourable trade deal"
We are in a new era of power politics, that's "what's wrong with that"
Because whatever our starting point he’s going to ask for something.
We operate our country in the way that is right for our country.
We stand up to Russia. We stand up to China. We should stand up to Trump, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for a few years.
And, to be clear, if Apple wants to operate in the UK it must abide by UK law. It is up to us if we want to amend our laws under pressure from the US but Apple has to abide by the final result.
But that isn't true, is it? We are so economically, politically and militarily dependent on the USA - and now ALSO technologically subjugated - we have no option but to jump yay high when asked
eg Let's say Apple responded to a wild new UK lawby saying "We will withdraw all apple products from the UK and they shall cease to function in five weeks, unless you change this law", meaning all owners of iPhones, Apple watches, macs, etc, are fucked
Apple could afford to do this, quite easily, it is so big - it might be painful but Britain is not a huge market for them, it is not China or the EU. And it would be an impressive show of strength pour encourager les autres
Such would be the outcry from voters any UK government would fold and seek a humiliating compromise, or maybe we could ask the UN or the Hague or the government of Mauritius to step in and help us tell those Americans a thing or two?
Apple couldn't afford to do it as nobody anywhere in the world would buy an iPhone again. Apart from that a flawless argument
You think if Apple withdrew from the UK market because of some obscure legal dispute between Apple and His Majesty's Government, then everyone else in the world would throw their iPhones in the bin and never buy a new Apple poduct ever, such is the infuence of UK soft power?
I submit that you are on ketamine, but other than that, a flawless argument
No I think if Apple made "all Apple products" in the UK "cease to function" over an "obscure legal dispute" nobody in their right minds would buy Apple again.
I realise you have a mental age of about 7, but do try to remember what you wrote a few minutes before.
Apple did almost exactly that in Russia, in 2022
In 2022, Apple withdrew from Russia abruptly and thoroughly in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of that year. The company took a series of decisive actions that effectively cut off its operations in the country:
1. Immediate Halt of Product Sales
On March 1, 2022, Apple announced that it had stopped selling all its products in Russia, including iPhones, iPads, Macs, and other devices. Russian customers were no longer able to order Apple products from the official Apple online store, and shipments to Russian retailers were suspended.
2. Restrictions on Apple Pay and Financial Services
Apple disabled Apple Pay in Russia, making it difficult for Russian users to make payments via their Apple devices. Several Russian banks were also removed from Apple Pay, aligning with Western sanctions that targeted Russia’s financial sector.
3. Removal of RT and Sputnik from the App Store
Apple removed Russian state-controlled media outlets, RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik, from its App Store globally to limit the spread of Kremlin-backed propaganda.
4. Disabling Key Features in Russia
Apple disabled traffic and live incident reports in Apple Maps in Ukraine and Russia to protect civilians from military movements and avoid potential misuse.
5. Suspension of Advertising and Services
Apple paused advertising on the App Store in Russia, affecting developers who relied on Apple’s ad services for revenue. Subscription-based Apple services like Apple News were also cut off.
6. iCloud and Software Restrictions
While some existing Apple devices in Russia continued to work, Apple restricted new software updates and services for users in Russia. Developers also found it far more difficult to distribute apps and services in the Russian market.
7. Corporate and Retail Exit
Apple closed its physical offices and corporate operations in Russia, effectively cutting ties with the country’s market. Employees in Russia were relocated or let go.
Impact and Russian Response:
Apple’s withdrawal made iPhones and other Apple products scarce in Russia, leading to a resale boom and gray-market imports from third-party countries like Turkey and Kazakhstan.
Many Russian users switched to Android as Apple services became inaccessible.
The Russian government pushed for homegrown alternatives, like promoting its own smartphone operating systems and digital payment solutions.
Apple’s withdrawal was one of the most comprehensive exits in history by a major Western tech company, and unlike some firms that found ways to stay indirectly, Apple has never returned to the Russian market.
Apple has just promised to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Indonesia because the iPhone 16 had been shut out of the country's market for not having have enough components manufactured locally:
So? They are simply unable to do what the UK Government wants. Even they cannot access their own encryption and putting in a back door would utterly destroy the whole claim of security. This would be an existential choice between their sales in the UK (and the threat of imprisonment) and their ability to continue with high level security in the whole of the rest of the world. There really wouldn't be any choice to make. The UK just isn't that important a market compared to the rest of the world.
Why isn't Android or Google impacted the same way that Apple is ?
Because they don't have the same levels of E2E encryption... yet. Malmesbury mentioned it below. This may all become moot if AI gets its teeth into it but at the moment Apple really do have properly secure encryption and the UK Government has no way of breaking it so wants a back door.
Throwing my twp penn'orth in on a topic I know nothing about (when has that stopped anyone here?), but what about Whatsapp. Surely that would be doomed?
No idea. Though if I were being cheeky I would suggest that UK politicians might quietly ignore Whatsapp as it is their off the record chat system of choice. Unltimate deniability.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/jan/28/ban-on-xl-bully-dogs-a-huge-burden-on-policing-force-chiefs-warn
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/04/xl-bully-ban-dog-attacks-human
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/05/lancashire-police-apologise-as-xl-bully-put-down-due-to-administration-error
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/uk-campaigners-seek-overturn-ban-american-xl-bully-dogs
It is the only paper which consistently runs these anti-ban articles, as far as I can see
They do report attacks as well, because they have to
And I am not sure too many cats have been wiping out sea eagle populations, which was the problem in Norway which led to the studies in the first place.
Pew research asked an open-ended question in 2023 and got:
"Around a fifth of Americans (22%) name the United Kingdom as their country’s most important ally. This is nearly four times the share who name America’s northern neighbor, Canada (6%). Fewer name Israel (4%), Germany (3%), China (2%), Japan (2%), the EU (1%), France (1%), Mexico (1%) or Russia (1%)."
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/27/americans-name-china-as-the-country-posing-the-greatest-threat-to-the-us/
Do you think the Security Services are doing this to make Cooper look even more stupid than someone who married her husband could look already ?
He'll soon get the message.
David Cameron wasn’t a fan. I seem to recall his view was that he was a career psychopath or something. Seems to fit.
The number of people claiming asylum in the UK in 2024 has reached its highest level since records began in 1979, Home Office figures show.
And I HATE Starmer and always will and if he folds on Chagos as he wants OMFG
Nonetheless if Starmer can elicit a hint of empathy from me I wonder if Labour might get a modest patriotic poll-boost, albeit short term
They can be replaced by AI dogs (in the very near future) which will never attack innocent humans
Perhaps this is why it divides opinion?
Now multiply these psycho tendencies over generations of inbreeding by drugged up hillbillies in Appalachia and add ever more muscle and ferocity, and you end up with a monster of a killer dog, wired to maul almost anything to death, multiple mental issues, and with no obvious way of restraining them. Note that the dogs in a recent near-fatal attack had to be be shot NINETEEN TIMES before they quit chewing
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjry83gjlqno
They should not exist
During a debate on Ukraine, Duncan Smith said:
The idea that just meeting Putin’s demand for territory - that he may have got or not - at the moment somehow will appease him and will satisfy his requirements is, I think, a completely wrong judgement.
I noticed in a telephone call between President Trump and Putin this is what President Trump said was important. The truth is Putin is an ex-KGB man. Once KGB, always KGB.
He’s not interested in territory, he’s interested in sovereignty.
He added:
What we have to get lined up in here is the real nature of what Putin wants, and it’s not territory, it’s sovereignty.
He wants to recreate and has always wanted to recreate the full borders of the old Soviet Union in a greater Russia, we know that. And Ukraine isn’t about 20% of their territory, for him it’s all of Ukraine.
So you have a peace deal which isn’t stable, he will be back.
He’ll build up his armed forces, which he can do quite quickly now with the support of people like North Korea, and he will be back in double quick time.
NEW THREAD
And, with that, I am off.
He is very good tactically I think. His masterminding of the dissolution of parliament followed by the Get Brexit Done election was extraordinary. Sadly they replaced the ousted wets with a load more, and the rest is history.
What people think should happen and what does happen (legally) are very different. Laws can't solve all the problem of people being arses and not training/controlling their dogs.
That must have been horrific.