A gardener who was told by Paddy Power her £1m jackpot from an online game was just a computer error has won a High Court case over her winnings.
Corrine Durber, from Gloucestershire, played the Wild Hatter game in October 2020 - a two-part game involving a fruit machine and a wheel of fortune.
After spinning the jackpot wheel, Mrs Durber's iPad Screen displayed she had won the "Monster Jackpot", which was stated as £1,097,132.71.
But the gambling giant only paid out £20,265 telling her she had won the smaller "Daily Jackpot", with the difference attributed to a programming error with the game's display. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gl2n2n14o
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
The scandal Jenrick has unearthed is quite spectacular
Shabana Mahmood seems - to me - to be lying through her teeth
The Sentencing Council published their new guidelines today, tweeting them out at length, and with all links. No way this was not approved by the government. I do not believe the Home Office "simply didn't notice" the outrageous racist bias (and religious bias) therein
The document is still there and it's all in black and white, as it were:
They fully expected this to come into force on April 1, 2025, ie in about three weeks' time
It is only - as far as I can see - because Bobby Jenrick kicked up a fuss in the Commons tpday that it is now being hastily withdrawn because of course "the Labour government will never tolerate two tier justice in the UK (unless they can get away with and it's not TOO blatant"
I work in the public sector. I can completely imagine that this got in without approval of Labour politicians. 1) Senior management in the public sector are completely bought into the concept that white people are inherently guilty. I sat through a lecture last week about hiw terrible the white riots last summer were. No mention, oddly, of the Asian riots after tge Manchester Airport incident - because inky white people are guilty. So I can completely imagine the culture in which this sort of policy emerges it. It's very easy to get anything which purports to favour non-whites into the public sector sausage machine, and - especially as a white male - you would have to be very courageous to challenge it. And 2) The volume of stuff which government produces - which politicians must read and be responsible for - is astronomical. I simply cannot believe any minister reads them all - and especially with something like this, can you imagine anyone in the hierarchy highlighting this particular bit? Although if they did, I suspect the ministers are just as scared as the staff of challenging the idea of white-is-bad.
Deeply depressing, but sounds quite plausible. I don't know how you tolerate it
And on that sober note, I am gonna walk up Primrose Hill. Tis a cold but beautifully clear evening. Later
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
The scandal Jenrick has unearthed is quite spectacular
Shabana Mahmood seems - to me - to be lying through her teeth
The Sentencing Council published their new guidelines today, tweeting them out at length, and with all links. No way this was not approved by the government. I do not believe the Home Office "simply didn't notice" the outrageous racist bias (and religious bias) therein
The document is still there and it's all in black and white, as it were:
They fully expected this to come into force on April 1, 2025, ie in about three weeks' time
It is only - as far as I can see - because Bobby Jenrick kicked up a fuss in the Commons tpday that it is now being hastily withdrawn because of course "the Labour government will never tolerate two tier justice in the UK (unless they can get away with and it's not TOO blatant"
I work in the public sector. I can completely imagine that this got in without approval of Labour politicians. 1) Senior management in the public sector are completely bought into the concept that white people are inherently guilty. I sat through a lecture last week about hiw terrible the white riots last summer were. No mention, oddly, of the Asian riots after tge Manchester Airport incident - because inky white people are guilty. So I can completely imagine the culture in which this sort of policy emerges it. It's very easy to get anything which purports to favour non-whites into the public sector sausage machine, and - especially as a white male - you would have to be very courageous to challenge it. And 2) The volume of stuff which government produces - which politicians must read and be responsible for - is astronomical. I simply cannot believe any minister reads them all - and especially with something like this, can you imagine anyone in the hierarchy highlighting this particular bit? Although if they did, I suspect the ministers are just as scared as the staff of challenging the idea of white-is-bad.
A competent minister should read all key changes in their department area, Jenrick managed it and he is only the Shadow Minister
More likely both Jenrick and Mahmood were tipped off by someone who had read the changes when they were published this morning.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
I’ve read the minutes of the meeting it was agreed and her “personal representative” was there.
No objections were minuted.
This is the Labour Party’s policy under Two-Tier Kier.
Wow, well done Bobby J. Sharp, clever politics and a clear win
Sigh. The Tories really did choose the wrong one of the two
The issue with such things is that if X was not good enough to beat Y in a contest, would they actually have been that good if they had won? Applies in many such instances, see the years long love affair with David Miliband.
Jenrick has been smarter, sharper and punchier in taking on Labour, than Kemi. I suspect he would regularly duff up Starmer in PMQs
Of course this might be hopecasting, but today is an example of how he can set the agenda and trouble Labour in a way Kemi apparently finds impossible (and I like her, and I wanted her to be given the chance, but I fear she has fluffed it, and she's simply not up to it)
Jenrick has a nasty ruthless streak. Probably a good thing in a LOTO
He also puts the fear of God into the CCHQ hierarchy, who apparently want to install CLEVERLY to replace Kemi ffs. The idiot who cheated his own way out of the leadership race.
Cleverly wants to run for London Mayor, if Kemi went it would likely be her Shadow Chancellor Stride who replaced her before the next GE
Reasonable candidate for it I guess. Still think Boris would have done better.
Cleverly would be a great candidate for London mayor. I suspect he'd win, tho that depends on who Labour put up (surely the loathsome Khan won't go for a fourth tilt?). Cleverly would be a bloody disaster as LOTO, another milquetoast Sunakite Cameroony wet, he would take the party nowhere, and fast
Cleverley's best hope is for Khan to run again - in the May 2024 Mayoral election, Khan got 44% and Susan Hall for the Tories got 33%. In the GE two months later, Labour got 43% in London, the Conservatives 20.6% so Hall was able to get a significant anti-Khan vote to come to the Conservatives whereas in the GE the Conservative vote collapsed.
I suspect Khan won't run again and a "new" Labour candidate will be much harder to beat.
Are both elections so easily comparable though Stodge? They are for election of two different things - asking voters to answer two very different questions.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
A gardener who was told by Paddy Power her £1m jackpot from an online game was just a computer error has won a High Court case over her winnings.
Corrine Durber, from Gloucestershire, played the Wild Hatter game in October 2020 - a two-part game involving a fruit machine and a wheel of fortune.
After spinning the jackpot wheel, Mrs Durber's iPad Screen displayed she had won the "Monster Jackpot", which was stated as £1,097,132.71.
But the gambling giant only paid out £20,265 telling her she had won the smaller "Daily Jackpot", with the difference attributed to a programming error with the game's display. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gl2n2n14o
I would think so. What if they'd shown the screen to 10000 people due to a worse programming error?
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Maybe because it is not really dispassionate, and for those of us that are opposed to a murderous dictator invading a sovereign country and stealing its children and murdering and raping its population it is possible many of us find people attempting to be "dispassionate" thoroughly offensive in the extreme. So fuck your so so-called dispassionate assessment, there is nothing here to be dispassionate about.
Lol you're a funny guy. You seem quite desperate to prove to us that you are opposed to a murderous dictator invading a sovereign country and stealing its children and whatnot.
But I don't believe you.
Tosser, absolutely. Anti murderous dictator, etc? No way.
You seem to have just turned into a contrarian twat. This is a shame as you used to be someone who was thoughtful and occasionally funny, but now you struggle to put together a coherent argument, let alone be witty. Have you tried alcoholics anonymous?
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Justin Trudeau, of Canada, called me to ask what could be done about Tariffs. I told him that many people have died from Fentanyl that came through the Borders of Canada and Mexico, and nothing has convinced me that it has stopped. He said that it's gotten better, but I said, "That's not good enough." The call ended in a "somewhat" friendly manner! He was unable to tell me when the Canadian Election is taking place, which made me curious, like, what's going on here? I then realized he is trying to use this issue to stay in power. Good luck Justin!
For anyone who is interested, I also told Governor Justin Trudeau of Canada that he largely caused the problems we have with them because of his Weak Border Policies, which allowed tremendous amounts of Fentanyl, and Illegal Aliens, to pour into the United States. These Policies are responsible for the death of many people!
I wonder if he is displaying standard american confusion at the idea a GE date is not fixed (other than a maximum end period for the parliament), or if the implication skullduggery is going on was done despite knowing why a clear date was not given.
Ignorance or maliciousness?
I'm curious as to how long this is going to go on. When will the penny drop that he gives zero fucks and he's toying with everyone?
Ignore him. No calls, no visits, no mentions - and no TV ratings. Put together a seperate set of deals and guarantees.
This is very much my view: I don't think there's any benefit from engaging with the US adminstration beyond the absolute minimum.
Nations are too afraid of immediate punitive reaction, I don't think many will risk just ignoring him as much as possible.
Trump knows being a loud bully usually works, it's a life lesson we are all typically aware of (though we sometimes pretend otherwise otherwise) it just doesn't usually apply to national level where diplomatic language soothes things over.
We are utterly dependent on this guy for our military right now. So we need to smile and tell him how great he is while we de-integrate our military from the US as fast as possible. I hope to God we never put the UK in this situation again.
“de-integrate our military from the US as fast as possible”.
Question is, how quick is fast as possible? considering it’s vital intelligence you don’t want to throw out with the bathwater, shared interlocking technology on long term contracts, and UK nuclear deterrent.
Perhaps a smarter post than yours suggests diplomatically steering it for 4 years, where it’s a very different US administration, perhaps never again one as disruptive as this?
I'm sorry, but it is not about this guy. Leaders change, alliances change and interests change. We must never be in a position where our military is so heavily reliant on another nation. As for how long it takes yeah many years sadly, we still need to start today.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Maybe because it is not really dispassionate, and for those of us that are opposed to a murderous dictator invading a sovereign country and stealing its children and murdering and raping its population it is possible many of us find people attempting to be "dispassionate" thoroughly offensive in the extreme. So fuck your so so-called dispassionate assessment, there is nothing here to be dispassionate about.
Lol you're a funny guy. You seem quite desperate to prove to us that you are opposed to a murderous dictator invading a sovereign country and stealing its children and whatnot.
But I don't believe you.
Tosser, absolutely. Anti murderous dictator, etc? No way.
You seem to have just turned into a contrarian twat. This is a shame as you used to be someone who was thoughtful and occasionally funny, but now you struggle to put together a coherent argument, let alone be witty. Have you tried alcoholics anonymous?
Nigel take a step back. All lucky guy did was to make his assessment of the situation. Is it right or wrong? Who cares.
But plenty of people on here have a conniption fit if any poster doesn't call for, and think there will be a Ukrainian takeover of Russia by Thursday afternoon.
Thank you for your compliment, likewise I had thought you more self confident and less herd-like than them.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
Justin Trudeau, of Canada, called me to ask what could be done about Tariffs. I told him that many people have died from Fentanyl that came through the Borders of Canada and Mexico, and nothing has convinced me that it has stopped. He said that it's gotten better, but I said, "That's not good enough." The call ended in a "somewhat" friendly manner! He was unable to tell me when the Canadian Election is taking place, which made me curious, like, what's going on here? I then realized he is trying to use this issue to stay in power. Good luck Justin!
For anyone who is interested, I also told Governor Justin Trudeau of Canada that he largely caused the problems we have with them because of his Weak Border Policies, which allowed tremendous amounts of Fentanyl, and Illegal Aliens, to pour into the United States. These Policies are responsible for the death of many people!
I wonder if he is displaying standard american confusion at the idea a GE date is not fixed (other than a maximum end period for the parliament), or if the implication skullduggery is going on was done despite knowing why a clear date was not given.
Ignorance or maliciousness?
I'm curious as to how long this is going to go on. When will the penny drop that he gives zero fucks and he's toying with everyone?
Ignore him. No calls, no visits, no mentions - and no TV ratings. Put together a seperate set of deals and guarantees.
This is very much my view: I don't think there's any benefit from engaging with the US adminstration beyond the absolute minimum.
Nations are too afraid of immediate punitive reaction, I don't think many will risk just ignoring him as much as possible.
Trump knows being a loud bully usually works, it's a life lesson we are all typically aware of (though we sometimes pretend otherwise otherwise) it just doesn't usually apply to national level where diplomatic language soothes things over.
We are utterly dependent on this guy for our military right now. So we need to smile and tell him how great he is while we de-integrate our military from the US as fast as possible. I hope to God we never put the UK in this situation again.
“de-integrate our military from the US as fast as possible”.
Question is, how quick is fast as possible? considering it’s vital intelligence you don’t want to throw out with the bathwater, shared interlocking technology on long term contracts, and UK nuclear deterrent.
Perhaps a smarter post than yours suggests diplomatically steering it for 4 years, where it’s a very different US administration, perhaps never again one as disruptive as this?
I'm sorry, but it is not about this guy. Leaders change, alliances change and interests change. we must never be in a position where our military is so heavily reliant on another nation. As for how long it takes yeah many years sadly, we we still need to start today.
I completely agree. The post war consensus on international matters between the main parties has completely disintegrated. Even when Trump is just a (very) bad memory we cannot rule out that the loons in charge of the GOP party may not seize control again and the roller coaster starts again. We cannot rely on a country that voted for Trump. It is really that simple I am afraid.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia has been in a "uniquely beatable position" for three years.
Good speech from Macron and not pulling any punches
Demands all countries address their defence spending and that Europe [with UK] accepts the peace dividend is over and Europe has to stand with Ukraine
He went on to say that across the political divide and all parts of government, thinking has to urgently change to address the new order and many departments of government will have to change and redirect their efforts to the defence of their county and Europe
He certainly seems to have given up on the US and clearly many extra billions will have to be found to create a force capable of standing up to Russia without US assistance
There is no way to return to the pre Trump Era, and ultimately, maybe in a decade or so, Russia may face a far superior military that will contain its warmongering but in the meantime ???
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
The scandal Jenrick has unearthed is quite spectacular
Shabana Mahmood seems - to me - to be lying through her teeth
The Sentencing Council published their new guidelines today, tweeting them out at length, and with all links. No way this was not approved by the government. I do not believe the Home Office "simply didn't notice" the outrageous racist bias (and religious bias) therein
The document is still there and it's all in black and white, as it were:
They fully expected this to come into force on April 1, 2025, ie in about three weeks' time
It is only - as far as I can see - because Bobby Jenrick kicked up a fuss in the Commons tpday that it is now being hastily withdrawn because of course "the Labour government will never tolerate two tier justice in the UK (unless they can get away with and it's not TOO blatant"
As previously posted, the Justice Secretary ruled it out immediately when Jenrick asked the question, so at the very least she is fast on her feet.
Jenrick of course knows all this because he was there, but is clearly after Kemi's job. As it happens, Kemi had her best PMQs in weeks (see last thread).
Here for the third time is the Hansard link:- Robert Jenrick: Why is the Justice Secretary enshrining this double standard—this two-tier approach to sentencing? It is an inversion of the rule of law. Conservative Members believe in equality under the law; why does she not?
So, why was the Sentencing Council - surely with Home Office and Justice Secretary approval (how could they not have that??) - confidently tweeting out their new guidelines today, which have taken months or years to prepare, so they coud be enacted at the end of this month? As that was, it seems, the plan?
Did Shabana Mahmood simply not notice this outrageous "two tier racism" until Jenrick pointed it out? If she didn't notice that is grave negligence - this is her job - or perhaps she is lying, and got caught
If it has taken years to prepare that would indicate it was prepared in part by the last government?
Yep, there are some indications this insanity also began under the Tories (like Chagos)
Jeez, how bad were the Tories from 2010-2024???
This is why the Tories must be destroyed, or taken over by Reform
You are OK with the Conservative Party being taken over by a lickspittle Putin apologist? Maybe you are sympathetic to Vlad and his child stealing murderous ways and agree with Farage that it is all NATO's fault? If you do you are an even bigger twat than I thought you were.
No, I just want the Tories to die. To expire. To be gone. To be vomited into the bucket of bye bye. To be purged from history and thrown into the dungheap of doomsday, and good fucking riddance. I despise them
I suspect that, in these quite negative feelings, I am not alone
Yep, most of the people on the left share those views, and most likely those on the far right who sympathise with Trump and Putin. But hey, didn't you vote for Starmer and Rachel From Accounts?
If the US has stopped intelligence sharing with Ukraine, but is obliged to share intelligence with Britain under five eyes, can we share with Ukraine (informally) as a kind of middleman? There must be a few moral people left in the CIA.
No, that was already ruled out yesterday by the United States.
We should call their bluff and share any intelligence we like with the Ukrainians. If the US don't like it they can leave Five Eyes. Indeed the King's Government should stop sharing any intelligence with the country that is threatening one of the King's realms.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia has been in a "uniquely beatable position" for three years.
It has but we have refused to give Ukraine the equipment and support it needed to do so.
I’ve read the minutes of the meeting it was agreed and her “personal representative” was there.
No objections were minuted.
This is the Labour Party’s policy under Two-Tier Kier.
Wow, well done Bobby J. Sharp, clever politics and a clear win
Sigh. The Tories really did choose the wrong one of the two
The issue with such things is that if X was not good enough to beat Y in a contest, would they actually have been that good if they had won? Applies in many such instances, see the years long love affair with David Miliband.
Jenrick has been smarter, sharper and punchier in taking on Labour, than Kemi. I suspect he would regularly duff up Starmer in PMQs
Of course this might be hopecasting, but today is an example of how he can set the agenda and trouble Labour in a way Kemi apparently finds impossible (and I like her, and I wanted her to be given the chance, but I fear she has fluffed it, and she's simply not up to it)
Jenrick has a nasty ruthless streak. Probably a good thing in a LOTO
He also puts the fear of God into the CCHQ hierarchy, who apparently want to install CLEVERLY to replace Kemi ffs. The idiot who cheated his own way out of the leadership race.
Cleverly wants to run for London Mayor, if Kemi went it would likely be her Shadow Chancellor Stride who replaced her before the next GE
Reasonable candidate for it I guess. Still think Boris would have done better.
Cleverly would be a great candidate for London mayor. I suspect he'd win, tho that depends on who Labour put up (surely the loathsome Khan won't go for a fourth tilt?). Cleverly would be a bloody disaster as LOTO, another milquetoast Sunakite Cameroony wet, he would take the party nowhere, and fast
Cleverley's best hope is for Khan to run again - in the May 2024 Mayoral election, Khan got 44% and Susan Hall for the Tories got 33%. In the GE two months later, Labour got 43% in London, the Conservatives 20.6% so Hall was able to get a significant anti-Khan vote to come to the Conservatives whereas in the GE the Conservative vote collapsed.
I suspect Khan won't run again and a "new" Labour candidate will be much harder to beat.
Are both elections so easily comparable though Stodge? They are for election of two different things - asking voters to answer two very different questions.
Of course - the point was Labour didn't do as well in either election as you might have expected given the party's traditional strength in the capital and apparently huge opinion poll leads.
The swing in both elections was about 3% from Conservative to Labour so hardly earth shattering in the context of some of the swings coming out of provincial England for example.
Khan will have to stand on a record which is at best mixed and he has alienated a lot of people especially in the Outer suburbs and we will never know whether, had the Conservatives chosen Paul Scully for example, whether the reault would have been very much closer last May.
The scandal Jenrick has unearthed is quite spectacular
Shabana Mahmood seems - to me - to be lying through her teeth
The Sentencing Council published their new guidelines today, tweeting them out at length, and with all links. No way this was not approved by the government. I do not believe the Home Office "simply didn't notice" the outrageous racist bias (and religious bias) therein
The document is still there and it's all in black and white, as it were:
They fully expected this to come into force on April 1, 2025, ie in about three weeks' time
It is only - as far as I can see - because Bobby Jenrick kicked up a fuss in the Commons tpday that it is now being hastily withdrawn because of course "the Labour government will never tolerate two tier justice in the UK (unless they can get away with and it's not TOO blatant"
I work in the public sector. I can completely imagine that this got in without approval of Labour politicians. 1) Senior management in the public sector are completely bought into the concept that white people are inherently guilty. I sat through a lecture last week about hiw terrible the white riots last summer were. No mention, oddly, of the Asian riots after tge Manchester Airport incident - because inky white people are guilty. So I can completely imagine the culture in which this sort of policy emerges it. It's very easy to get anything which purports to favour non-whites into the public sector sausage machine, and - especially as a white male - you would have to be very courageous to challenge it. And 2) The volume of stuff which government produces - which politicians must read and be responsible for - is astronomical. I simply cannot believe any minister reads them all - and especially with something like this, can you imagine anyone in the hierarchy highlighting this particular bit? Although if they did, I suspect the ministers are just as scared as the staff of challenging the idea of white-is-bad.
Deeply depressing, but sounds quite plausible. I don't know how you tolerate it
And on that sober note, I am gonna walk up Primrose Hill. Tis a cold but beautifully clear evening. Later
Got to earn a crust somehow. I see myself as a mancunian Ron Swanson. Also, much of the private sector is just as bad. Also, pensions. Also, pleased to hear you are now appreciating a beautiful English winter's* evening.
*I go by the astronomical seasons Though also by what it feels like**, and it doesn't feel like Spring yet.
**What it feels like - to me - and this is deeply subjective: Spring - about March 21st to about 8th June Summer - about 8th June to August bank holifay Autumn - Whenever kids go back to school until Nov 30th. Winter - first day of advent calendar to the vernal equinox.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
The scandal Jenrick has unearthed is quite spectacular
Shabana Mahmood seems - to me - to be lying through her teeth
The Sentencing Council published their new guidelines today, tweeting them out at length, and with all links. No way this was not approved by the government. I do not believe the Home Office "simply didn't notice" the outrageous racist bias (and religious bias) therein
The document is still there and it's all in black and white, as it were:
They fully expected this to come into force on April 1, 2025, ie in about three weeks' time
It is only - as far as I can see - because Bobby Jenrick kicked up a fuss in the Commons tpday that it is now being hastily withdrawn because of course "the Labour government will never tolerate two tier justice in the UK (unless they can get away with and it's not TOO blatant"
I work in the public sector. I can completely imagine that this got in without approval of Labour politicians. 1) Senior management in the public sector are completely bought into the concept that white people are inherently guilty. I sat through a lecture last week about hiw terrible the white riots last summer were. No mention, oddly, of the Asian riots after tge Manchester Airport incident - because inky white people are guilty. So I can completely imagine the culture in which this sort of policy emerges it. It's very easy to get anything which purports to favour non-whites into the public sector sausage machine, and - especially as a white male - you would have to be very courageous to challenge it. And 2) The volume of stuff which government produces - which politicians must read and be responsible for - is astronomical. I simply cannot believe any minister reads them all - and especially with something like this, can you imagine anyone in the hierarchy highlighting this particular bit? Although if they did, I suspect the ministers are just as scared as the staff of challenging the idea of white-is-bad.
Deeply depressing, but sounds quite plausible. I don't know how you tolerate it
And on that sober note, I am gonna walk up Primrose Hill. Tis a cold but beautifully clear evening. Later
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia has been in a "uniquely beatable position" for three years.
It has but we have refused to give Ukraine the equipment and support it needed to do so.
And what does knowing that fact bring to your analysis of the situation, Richard.
Macron just gave a big presidential zeitenwende speech. They’re upping spending too.
I’m kind of hopeful that the mixture of friendship and healthy competition for European defence leadership with Britain could be quite fruitful.
When is our Spring budget? I am not sure that we should be waiting that long before making similar commitments. Starmer really does need to push this forward rapidly. He has doen okay so far, though I disagree with his continued belief that our relationship with the US is salvagable. But he needs to do more and rapidly.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia has been in a "uniquely beatable position" for three years.
It has but we have refused to give Ukraine the equipment and support it needed to do so.
And what does that tell you about the world, Richard.
Not sure what it tells me about the world but I know what it tells me about politicians. One of the reasons I view them with such contempt.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Has anyone paid attention to what Boris has or hasn't said.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia has been in a "uniquely beatable position" for three years.
Indeed, which is why it has been failing and losing so much money, men and materials for those years.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia has been in a "uniquely beatable position" for three years.
So we should actually give Ukraine the weapons to do so.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia has been in a "uniquely beatable position" for three years.
It has but we have refused to give Ukraine the equipment and support it needed to do so.
And what does that tell you about the world, Richard.
Not sure what it tells me about the world but I know what it tells me about politicians. One of the reasons I view them with such contempt.
Quite so but we are talking about Ukraine and its conflict with Russia. What does that fact help you to understand about it.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
I have no love at all for Johnson. But I have not seen any other former PMs doing what you suggest either. Johnson was in Kiev on the 3rd anniversary of the invasion. And yes he has sadly been silent since Trump's idiocy but so have Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May and Sunak.
The scandal Jenrick has unearthed is quite spectacular
Shabana Mahmood seems - to me - to be lying through her teeth
The Sentencing Council published their new guidelines today, tweeting them out at length, and with all links. No way this was not approved by the government. I do not believe the Home Office "simply didn't notice" the outrageous racist bias (and religious bias) therein
The document is still there and it's all in black and white, as it were:
They fully expected this to come into force on April 1, 2025, ie in about three weeks' time
It is only - as far as I can see - because Bobby Jenrick kicked up a fuss in the Commons tpday that it is now being hastily withdrawn because of course "the Labour government will never tolerate two tier justice in the UK (unless they can get away with and it's not TOO blatant"
I work in the public sector. I can completely imagine that this got in without approval of Labour politicians. 1) Senior management in the public sector are completely bought into the concept that white people are inherently guilty. I sat through a lecture last week about hiw terrible the white riots last summer were. No mention, oddly, of the Asian riots after tge Manchester Airport incident - because inky white people are guilty. So I can completely imagine the culture in which this sort of policy emerges it. It's very easy to get anything which purports to favour non-whites into the public sector sausage machine, and - especially as a white male - you would have to be very courageous to challenge it. And 2) The volume of stuff which government produces - which politicians must read and be responsible for - is astronomical. I simply cannot believe any minister reads them all - and especially with something like this, can you imagine anyone in the hierarchy highlighting this particular bit? Although if they did, I suspect the ministers are just as scared as the staff of challenging the idea of white-is-bad.
Deeply depressing, but sounds quite plausible. I don't know how you tolerate it
And on that sober note, I am gonna walk up Primrose Hill. Tis a cold but beautifully clear evening. Later
Be careful of the Muslims. There might be some.
F***! What if Sadiq Khan is taking an evening stroll around Chalcot square gardens?
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Has anyone paid attention to what Boris has or hasn't said.
I've been following his roaring silence. It is deafening.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia has been in a "uniquely beatable position" for three years.
It has but we have refused to give Ukraine the equipment and support it needed to do so.
And what does that tell you about the world, Richard.
Not sure what it tells me about the world but I know what it tells me about politicians. One of the reasons I view them with such contempt.
Quite so but we are talking about Ukraine and its conflict with Russia. What does that fact help you to understand about it.
Exactly the same thing. Politicians are self serving scumbags who cannot be trusted to do the right thing. I am sure you have some other amazing insight but I am not really interested in it.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
German government bonds completely repriced today on the back of Merz's €500bn infrastructure fund and unlimited defence spending exempt from the usual constitutional limit on defence spending. From 2.5% to 2.8% at 10-years.
The EU and other European nations clearly stepping up as well. But Germany was the bazooka that we weren't sure whether it would launch or not, until now.
Meanwhile, the US moves from supporting Ukraine, to withdrawing support and then onto actively sabotaging in order to force Ukraine to accept capitulation.
I hope Ukraine can see this is a capability gap that will eventually be filled by Europe. But can they hold on that long? Hopefully yes, but I'd be lying if I knew that with any certainty.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Starmer’s done OK. I was cross with him last Thursday but I get it now.
I assume the state visit won’t go ahead. If it does I’ll change my mind.
Of course it will go ahead. Shall we have a bet.
(I am just heading in to see a play so might not respond for a while.)
I’m not averse to personal bets. I lost one to Leon a few months ago. But I’m not taking this one. Because honestly, in my subconscious, I know the bloody state visit will probably happen.
German government bonds completely repriced today on the back of Merz's €500bn infrastructure fund and unlimited defence spending exempt from the usual constitutional limit on defence spending. From 2.5% to 2.8% at 10-years.
The EU and other European nations clearly stepping up as well. But Germany was the bazooka that we weren't sure whether it would launch or not, until now.
Meanwhile, the US moves from supporting Ukraine, to withdrawing support and then onto actively sabotaging in order to force Ukraine to accept capitulation.
I hope Ukraine can see this is a capability gap that will eventually be filled by Europe. But can they hold on that long? Hopefully yes, but I'd be lying if I knew that with any certainty.
Those bond yields suggest Germany should lift the ceiling again. Spend spend spend. Spend for victory. They could go up another 2% before hitting US or UK levels.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia has been in a "uniquely beatable position" for three years.
Russia has taken 800,000 casualties, and lost 10,000 pieces of armour, in order to hold less territory than it had, three years ago.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
I have no love at all for Johnson. But I have not seen any other former PMs doing what you suggest either. Johnson was in Kiev on the 3rd anniversary of the invasion. And yes he has sadly been silent since Trump's idiocy but so have Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May and Sunak.
But there is a groundswell of opinion, as noted by Toppers's comment, that Johnson would be a more appropriate Statesman for the moment. And Johnson has up until recently seen Ukraine as an opportunity for redemption, which is great. So why the silence now?
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
I have no love at all for Johnson. But I have not seen any other former PMs doing what you suggest either. Johnson was in Kiev on the 3rd anniversary of the invasion. And yes he has sadly been silent since Trump's idiocy but so have Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May and Sunak.
But there is a groundswell of opinion, as noted by Toppers's comment, that Johnson would be a more appropriate Statesman for the moment. And Johnson has up until recently seen Ukraine as an opportunity for redemption, which is great. So why the silence now?
Johnson is very far from the politician for the moment. He is toxic in Europe.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Have I suggested that? I haven't, I doubt Johnson is pro-Putin, but now you mention it, I am reminded of the Lebedev bunga, bunga party and the elevation of Lebedev Jnr.to the HoL
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Isn’t the point that he is still (afaik) a supporter of Trump?
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.
It's simply nonsense. Starmer has had a suffuciently goid week for his party's polling to be approving, and to be attracting praise from Tories, and Johnson is the last person to either bring Europe and America together, or lead Europe, as a person with a very low prestige in Europe.
A gardener who was told by Paddy Power her £1m jackpot from an online game was just a computer error has won a High Court case over her winnings.
Corrine Durber, from Gloucestershire, played the Wild Hatter game in October 2020 - a two-part game involving a fruit machine and a wheel of fortune.
After spinning the jackpot wheel, Mrs Durber's iPad Screen displayed she had won the "Monster Jackpot", which was stated as £1,097,132.71.
But the gambling giant only paid out £20,265 telling her she had won the smaller "Daily Jackpot", with the difference attributed to a programming error with the game's display. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gl2n2n14o
I would think so. What if they'd shown the screen to 10000 people due to a worse programming error?
What if they'd tested the game more extensively before releasing it to the public?
The problem with bookmakers generally is they are too accustomed to having the rules skewed in their favour, particularly but not only the ‘palpable error’ rule which is invariably used to disqualify winning bets once the result is known.
There may be an appeal but I'd guess also an insurance claim and perhaps even suing the game's developers (probably not PP themselves).
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
If you think him "an unmitigated disaster" the course of action that Starmer should have followed, therefore must be crystal clear to you. What is this correct course of action in your view?
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.
It's simply nonsense. Starmer has had a suffuciently goid week for his party's polling to be approving, and to be attracting praise from Tories, and Johnson is the last person to either bring Europe and America together, or lead Europe, as a person with a very low prestige in Europe.
True. But I wasn't impressed by the 'state visit' creeping and I'm even less so now. I hope it doesn't happen and I think there's a fair chance it won't given Trump's escalating depravity.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.
It's simply nonsense. Starmer has had a suffuciently goid week for his party's polling to be approving, and to be attracting praise from Tories, and Johnson is the last person to either bring Europe and America together, or lead Europe, as a person with a very low prestige in Europe.
Starmer has been poor. It's not entirely his doing. Managing Trump and Vance has been like herding cats. His simpering hand-wringing performance on Thursday could have gone worse. Indeed by the following day it had.
Many of us are disappointed he can't bring himself to say Trump and Vance are a pair of ****s, and Trump can shove the invite from the King up his diapered ar**. To be fair that is exactly what Jenrick and today Kemi have said. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Johnson to declare the same.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
Does the law really say that women should be less likely to go to prison than men for the same crime? Or is this just a quango out of control?
It reflects the common law for hundreds of years.
Back in the day, a woman would be acquitted of a felony, and her husband convicted, if she said she acted on his orders.
Women have always been less likely than men, to face execution, torture, or imprisonment, than men, for any given offence.
Witchcraft?
A more serious point is that prisons minister Lord Timpson has indeed suggesting there is no point banging up so many women, and there are better ways to reduce reoffending.
Very good analysis segment of TRIP on JD Vance's contempt for British and French soldiers who served alongside USA forces, and the blowback. I hadn't realised that the total numbers rotating in and out of Afghanistan were 100k+ in toto. His "I didn't mean them" is a bit tricky when 52 countries served in Iraq in the noughties, including 1600 from Ukr. Deep link.
Centrist Dads' supply perspicacious analysis, and context, as ever. JDV's real problem is that he does not look beyond the echo chamber in his own head.
Useful idiots for Trump continue to reverse ferret, except afaics for Nonny-Nonny-Nigel. And I bet the Leeanderthal Man too, but I haven't checked.
Feeble centrist dad likes feeble centrist dad content. Startling
Lol. I go where the analysis leads.
The Trump-enthusiasts are realising they are naked emperors, and coming to their senses a little.
Will you be?
You are very possibly the stupidest person on here, and I find your cluelessly predictable commentary enjoyable for this reason. You're like a guilty pleasure
You've said that to at least a dozen people. Poor memory, or just lots of guilt ?
No, just a lot of competition for the title "stupidest person on PB"
You won that title, at the beginning of the week.
Enough with all this small-dick energy; just try and come to terms with what you were dealt.
No, you and @kamski and the rest misunderatood the "Charlemage effect". But I am kindly letting it go because I am essentially a nice person and I know you get weirdly querulous and angry when confronted with your personal intellectual limitations. I imagine this peevishness is why your only friend is a dog, but I have no desire to make that loneliness worse, so go forth with my blessing, this sacred Ash Wednesday
We should all be kinder to each other, like me
I was intrigued by the works referred to in this discussion and went and read them. What was interesting was that the model is based on assuming that the parents are randomly drawn from all available people in a population. Which is a bit unlikely. The author admits this in his work. But what is undeniable is that if you go back enough generations you will find an individual who everyone alive is a direct descendent of. But that person is unlikely to have been either Rollo of Charlemagne. Then going furthe r back you will reach a point where everyone alive is is either an ancestor of that person or has no surviving descendants. The issue at hand was about when that would be. After one generation it’s obviously not. By 1000 years ago it’s plausible, but I think on the whole not proven, and certainly the argument that everyone alive now is descended from everyone at 1000 is not proven.
I also did some research!
And what you say is fair. The nature of compounding maths and go-forth-and-multiply does mean that one European person. 1000 years ago, can have tens of millions of living descendants now, and direct descendants at that. However the application of brute force maths can go too far, there are too many confounders, so @kamksi's claim (IIRC) that we are all direct descendants of Rollo is almost certainly wrong (I apologise if I have mischaracterised his argument, its been a busy week in which - not least - I have flown from Shanghai to London)
It was a fun argument. Especially as I am PROVABLY a direct descendant of Rollo, and also Snurtur, the Norse God of Ice and Fire,
I thought you were supposed to be some kind of West Celt? Now you are Noggin the Nog or something?
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
If you think him "an unmitigated disaster" the course of action that Starmer should have followed, therefore must be crystal clear to you. What is this correct course of action in your view?
He's done about as well as any UK politician could in the last week, and certainly far better than the polarising Johnson would have.
Whatever happens from here on in, he's also probably given Britain its greatest week of international prestige since the 1990's.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.
It's simply nonsense. Starmer has had a suffuciently goid week for his party's polling to be approving, and to be attracting praise from Tories, and Johnson is the last person to either bring Europe and America together, or lead Europe, as a person with a very low prestige in Europe.
True. But I wasn't impressed by the 'state visit' creeping and I'm even less so now. I hope it doesn't happen and I think there's a fair chance it won't given Trump's escalating depravity.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
Does the law really say that women should be less likely to go to prison than men for the same crime? Or is this just a quango out of control?
It reflects the common law for hundreds of years.
Back in the day, a woman would be acquitted of a felony, and her husband convicted, if she said she acted on his orders.
Women have always been less likely than men, to face execution, torture, or imprisonment, than men, for any given offence.
It still happens today. If a couple have been dealing in drugs together the man almost invariably pleads on the basis that the women is let off and that deal is normally accepted. Its incredibly sexist but heaven forfend that anyone should even contemplate that the woman might have been the driving force in the operation. The cliché she was bullied into it prevails almost every time.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.
It's simply nonsense. Starmer has had a suffuciently goid week for his party's polling to be approving, and to be attracting praise from Tories, and Johnson is the last person to either bring Europe and America together, or lead Europe, as a person with a very low prestige in Europe.
Starmer has been poor. It's not entirely his doing. Managing Trump and Vance has been like herding cats. His simpering hand-wringing performance on Thursday could have gone worse. Indeed by the following day it had.
Many of us are disappointed he can't bring himself to say Trump and Vance are a pair of ****s, and Trump can shove the invite from the King up his diapered ar**. To be fair that is exactly what Jenrick and today Kemi have said. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Johnson to declare the same.
But that seems to achieve nothing with Trump.
We would probably be looking at the same 25% tariffs as the E.U, and no input into the Zelensky-Trump relationship that he is having.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
If you think him "an unmitigated disaster" the course of action that Starmer should have followed, therefore must be crystal clear to you. What is this correct course of action in your view?
He should not have bribed the orange c*** with a holiday in Scotland. It looked awful. He should have called Trump out for the mugging of Zelenskyy and rescinded the invite. It isn't getting any better as the days progress. It is as someone stated earlier, "a bad hand played badly".
The scandal Jenrick has unearthed is quite spectacular
Shabana Mahmood seems - to me - to be lying through her teeth
The Sentencing Council published their new guidelines today, tweeting them out at length, and with all links. No way this was not approved by the government. I do not believe the Home Office "simply didn't notice" the outrageous racist bias (and religious bias) therein
The document is still there and it's all in black and white, as it were:
They fully expected this to come into force on April 1, 2025, ie in about three weeks' time
It is only - as far as I can see - because Bobby Jenrick kicked up a fuss in the Commons tpday that it is now being hastily withdrawn because of course "the Labour government will never tolerate two tier justice in the UK (unless they can get away with and it's not TOO blatant"
I work in the public sector. I can completely imagine that this got in without approval of Labour politicians. 1) Senior management in the public sector are completely bought into the concept that white people are inherently guilty. I sat through a lecture last week about hiw terrible the white riots last summer were. No mention, oddly, of the Asian riots after tge Manchester Airport incident - because inky white people are guilty. So I can completely imagine the culture in which this sort of policy emerges it. It's very easy to get anything which purports to favour non-whites into the public sector sausage machine, and - especially as a white male - you would have to be very courageous to challenge it. And 2) The volume of stuff which government produces - which politicians must read and be responsible for - is astronomical. I simply cannot believe any minister reads them all - and especially with something like this, can you imagine anyone in the hierarchy highlighting this particular bit? Although if they did, I suspect the ministers are just as scared as the staff of challenging the idea of white-is-bad.
Sentencing guidelines is sufficiently controversial that someone should have flagged up for the minister, even if it is true there's no way to actually fine tooth comb 99% of stuff.
On 1), there is something to that I'm afraid, though my impression is it is getting some pushback, though not universally. I've seen more egregious stuff toned down in the last couple of years.
As a follow public sector worker - yes, can absolutely see what you mean
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
Does the law really say that women should be less likely to go to prison than men for the same crime? Or is this just a quango out of control?
It reflects the common law for hundreds of years.
Back in the day, a woman would be acquitted of a felony, and her husband convicted, if she said she acted on his orders.
Women have always been less likely than men, to face execution, torture, or imprisonment, than men, for any given offence.
Witchcraft?
Women were hanged in greater numbers than men, for witchcraft. But, executions for witchcraft were so rare, in England, as to make little difference to the overall preponderance of males, among those sentenced to death.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.
It's simply nonsense. Starmer has had a suffuciently goid week for his party's polling to be approving, and to be attracting praise from Tories, and Johnson is the last person to either bring Europe and America together, or lead Europe, as a person with a very low prestige in Europe.
Starmer has been poor. It's not entirely his doing. Managing Trump and Vance has been like herding cats. His simpering hand-wringing performance on Thursday could have gone worse. Indeed by the following day it had.
Many of us are disappointed he can't bring himself to say Trump and Vance are a pair of ****s, and Trump can shove the invite from the King up his diapered ar**. To be fair that is exactly what Jenrick and today Kemi have said. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Johnson to declare the same.
But that seems to achieve nothing with Trump.
We would probably be looking at the same 25% tariffs as the E.U, and no input into the Zelensky-Trump relationship that he is having.
I was hearing today we are likely to get the tariffs anyway. Vance hates Starmer and Britain. Musk despises Starmer. Starmer is whoring the nation for nothing.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
I have no love at all for Johnson. But I have not seen any other former PMs doing what you suggest either. Johnson was in Kiev on the 3rd anniversary of the invasion. And yes he has sadly been silent since Trump's idiocy but so have Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May and Sunak.
All these former leaders should stand together behind Starmer - and ask Trump to reconsider his decision to end the shipment of weapons and the sharing of intel.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
If you think him "an unmitigated disaster" the course of action that Starmer should have followed, therefore must be crystal clear to you. What is this correct course of action in your view?
He should not have bribed the orange c*** with a holiday in Scotland. It looked awful. He should have called Trump out for the mugging of Zelenskyy and rescinded the invite. It isn't getting any better as the days progress. It is as someone stated earlier, "a bad hand played badly".
I think it was at least, worth trying to win over the orange shit-stain.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.
It's simply nonsense. Starmer has had a suffuciently goid week for his party's polling to be approving, and to be attracting praise from Tories, and Johnson is the last person to either bring Europe and America together, or lead Europe, as a person with a very low prestige in Europe.
Starmer has been poor. It's not entirely his doing. Managing Trump and Vance has been like herding cats. His simpering hand-wringing performance on Thursday could have gone worse. Indeed by the following day it had.
Many of us are disappointed he can't bring himself to say Trump and Vance are a pair of ****s, and Trump can shove the invite from the King up his diapered ar**. To be fair that is exactly what Jenrick and today Kemi have said. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Johnson to declare the same.
But that seems to achieve nothing with Trump.
We would probably be looking at the same 25% tariffs as the E.U, and no input into the Zelensky-Trump relationship that he is having.
I was hearing today we are likely to get the tariffs anyway. Vance hates Starmer and Britain. Musk despises Starmer. Starmer is whoring the nation for nothing.
If he and Mandelson get the minerals deal back on, as they may do, they won't be.
He's also making himself more indispensable to Macron, Merz, and Trump.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
If you think him "an unmitigated disaster" the course of action that Starmer should have followed, therefore must be crystal clear to you. What is this correct course of action in your view?
He should not have bribed the orange c*** with a holiday in Scotland. It looked awful. He should have called Trump out for the mugging of Zelenskyy and rescinded the invite. It isn't getting any better as the days progress. It is as someone stated earlier, "a bad hand played badly".
I think it was at least, worth trying to win over the orange shit-stain.
Naah, the only special arrangement we had with the USA was the same relationship a prisoner had in the shower when we dropped the soap
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.
It's simply nonsense. Starmer has had a suffuciently goid week for his party's polling to be approving, and to be attracting praise from Tories, and Johnson is the last person to either bring Europe and America together, or lead Europe, as a person with a very low prestige in Europe.
Starmer has been poor. It's not entirely his doing. Managing Trump and Vance has been like herding cats. His simpering hand-wringing performance on Thursday could have gone worse. Indeed by the following day it had.
Many of us are disappointed he can't bring himself to say Trump and Vance are a pair of ****s, and Trump can shove the invite from the King up his diapered ar**. To be fair that is exactly what Jenrick and today Kemi have said. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Johnson to declare the same.
But that seems to achieve nothing with Trump.
We would probably be looking at the same 25% tariffs as the E.U, and no input into the Zelensky-Trump relationship that he is having.
I was hearing today we are likely to get the tariffs anyway. Vance hates Starmer and Britain. Musk despises Starmer. Starmer is whoring the nation for nothing.
If he and Mandelson get the minerals deal back on, as they may do, they won't be.
He's also making himself more indispensable to Macron, Merz, and Trump.
The "minerals deal" has the hallmarks of a New York Mafia style protection racket.
I wonder how long it will be until a major world leader states plainly that “America is now our enemy”. It surely can’t be long.
We have a major world leader called Keir Starmer. What he says is complicted by some hard facts. These facts include the facility the new enemy has to keep his nuclear installations in Suffolk, and his contracts to maintain your own. This places USA in a slightly different position from China, Russia, Iran etc.
The extent to which this is a global nightmare has yet to come home to us, and it won't be long before talk turns to how USA politics and the institutions of civil society might deal with the matter internally. No-one else in the west possibly can do it.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have to comprehend that everything Sir K and the government say and do is under the constraints mentioned here, and a million more, including stuff we can't know exists. A government of national unity would be entirely understandable. But we will be slow to go that way, as it rather lets the cat out of the bunker about where we stand.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
If you think him "an unmitigated disaster" the course of action that Starmer should have followed, therefore must be crystal clear to you. What is this correct course of action in your view?
He should not have bribed the orange c*** with a holiday in Scotland. It looked awful. He should have called Trump out for the mugging of Zelenskyy and rescinded the invite. It isn't getting any better as the days progress. It is as someone stated earlier, "a bad hand played badly".
I think it was at least, worth trying to win over the orange shit-stain.
Naah, the only special arrangement we had with the USA was the same relationship a prisoner had in the shower when we dropped the soap
The U.S. still holds many cards, not least in our defence infrastructure.
You have to try to build Euro-Atlantic bridges, either for strategic reasons, or for delaying and smoothing the change to new infrastructure, or both.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
If you think him "an unmitigated disaster" the course of action that Starmer should have followed, therefore must be crystal clear to you. What is this correct course of action in your view?
He should not have bribed the orange c*** with a holiday in Scotland. It looked awful. He should have called Trump out for the mugging of Zelenskyy and rescinded the invite. It isn't getting any better as the days progress. It is as someone stated earlier, "a bad hand played badly".
Apart from not offering Trump a state visit, the absence of which isn't by itself a course of action, what do you think Starmer should have done and should do? Assuming the purpose of these actions is to protect the UK and Ukrainian interests as best he could.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.
It's simply nonsense. Starmer has had a suffuciently goid week for his party's polling to be approving, and to be attracting praise from Tories, and Johnson is the last person to either bring Europe and America together, or lead Europe, as a person with a very low prestige in Europe.
Starmer has been poor. It's not entirely his doing. Managing Trump and Vance has been like herding cats. His simpering hand-wringing performance on Thursday could have gone worse. Indeed by the following day it had.
Many of us are disappointed he can't bring himself to say Trump and Vance are a pair of ****s, and Trump can shove the invite from the King up his diapered ar**. To be fair that is exactly what Jenrick and today Kemi have said. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Johnson to declare the same.
But that seems to achieve nothing with Trump.
We would probably be looking at the same 25% tariffs as the E.U, and no input into the Zelensky-Trump relationship that he is having.
I was hearing today we are likely to get the tariffs anyway. Vance hates Starmer and Britain. Musk despises Starmer. Starmer is whoring the nation for nothing.
If he and Mandelson get the minerals deal back on, as they may do, they won't be.
He's also making himself more indispensable to Macron, Merz, and Trump.
The "minerals deal" has the hallmarks of a New York Mafia style protection racket.
Not that surprising given it's being imposed by leading members of the New York Mafia.
Macron just gave a big presidential zeitenwende speech. They’re upping spending too.
I’m kind of hopeful that the mixture of friendship and healthy competition for European defence leadership with Britain could be quite fruitful.
When is our Spring budget? I am not sure that we should be waiting that long before making similar commitments. Starmer really does need to push this forward rapidly. He has doen okay so far, though I disagree with his continued belief that our relationship with the US is salvagable. But he needs to do more and rapidly.
About two weeks - 25th(26th?) of March.
I'm finding it a little disappointing (if not surprising) that they don't seem to be laying the ground of "You oldies - you remember the cold war, you remember your parents talking about the war? Now is your time to pay down for the young'uns who might be fighting for you."
Nonsense or not - that appeal and shaking up some of the disparities seems like quite an opportunity for any tax-hungry government.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
If you think him "an unmitigated disaster" the course of action that Starmer should have followed, therefore must be crystal clear to you. What is this correct course of action in your view?
He should not have bribed the orange c*** with a holiday in Scotland. It looked awful. He should have called Trump out for the mugging of Zelenskyy and rescinded the invite. It isn't getting any better as the days progress. It is as someone stated earlier, "a bad hand played badly".
I think it was at least, worth trying to win over the orange shit-stain.
Naah, the only special arrangement we had with the USA was the same relationship a prisoner had in the shower when we dropped the soap
The U.S. still holds many cards, not least in our defence infrastructure.
You have to try to build Euro-Atlantic bridges, either for strategic reasons, or for delaying and smoothing the change to new infrastructure, or both.
Should we be appeasing an unstable megalomaniac like this? The denying of intelligence to Ukraine will result in civilian deaths, and we can't tell them because the US threatens us?
That was exactly what we needed from Macron tonight. With he and Merz at the reins, and hopefully Starmer quietly gravitating closer to Europe too, we might actually have a set of governments who are able to effect a meaningful and robust defence policy in the coming years. Fingers crossed.
Very good analysis segment of TRIP on JD Vance's contempt for British and French soldiers who served alongside USA forces, and the blowback. I hadn't realised that the total numbers rotating in and out of Afghanistan were 100k+ in toto. His "I didn't mean them" is a bit tricky when 52 countries served in Iraq in the noughties, including 1600 from Ukr. Deep link.
Centrist Dads' supply perspicacious analysis, and context, as ever. JDV's real problem is that he does not look beyond the echo chamber in his own head.
Useful idiots for Trump continue to reverse ferret, except afaics for Nonny-Nonny-Nigel. And I bet the Leeanderthal Man too, but I haven't checked.
Feeble centrist dad likes feeble centrist dad content. Startling
Lol. I go where the analysis leads.
The Trump-enthusiasts are realising they are naked emperors, and coming to their senses a little.
Will you be?
You are very possibly the stupidest person on here, and I find your cluelessly predictable commentary enjoyable for this reason. You're like a guilty pleasure
You've said that to at least a dozen people. Poor memory, or just lots of guilt ?
No, just a lot of competition for the title "stupidest person on PB"
You won that title, at the beginning of the week.
Enough with all this small-dick energy; just try and come to terms with what you were dealt.
No, you and @kamski and the rest misunderatood the "Charlemage effect". But I am kindly letting it go because I am essentially a nice person and I know you get weirdly querulous and angry when confronted with your personal intellectual limitations. I imagine this peevishness is why your only friend is a dog, but I have no desire to make that loneliness worse, so go forth with my blessing, this sacred Ash Wednesday
We should all be kinder to each other, like me
I was intrigued by the works referred to in this discussion and went and read them. What was interesting was that the model is based on assuming that the parents are randomly drawn from all available people in a population. Which is a bit unlikely. The author admits this in his work. But what is undeniable is that if you go back enough generations you will find an individual who everyone alive is a direct descendent of. But that person is unlikely to have been either Rollo of Charlemagne. Then going furthe r back you will reach a point where everyone alive is is either an ancestor of that person or has no surviving descendants. The issue at hand was about when that would be. After one generation it’s obviously not. By 1000 years ago it’s plausible, but I think on the whole not proven, and certainly the argument that everyone alive now is descended from everyone at 1000 is not proven.
I also did some research!
And what you say is fair. The nature of compounding maths and go-forth-and-multiply does mean that one European person. 1000 years ago, can have tens of millions of living descendants now, and direct descendants at that. However the application of brute force maths can go too far, there are too many confounders, so @kamksi's claim (IIRC) that we are all direct descendants of Rollo is almost certainly wrong (I apologise if I have mischaracterised his argument, its been a busy week in which - not least - I have flown from Shanghai to London)
It was a fun argument. Especially as I am PROVABLY a direct descendant of Rollo, and also Snurtur, the Norse God of Ice and Fire,
I thought you were supposed to be some kind of West Celt? Now you are Noggin the Nog or something?
The lineage is via an ultra posh Cornish family - Anglo Norman Cornish aristocracy - who came down in the world, literally - they ended up down in the tin mines. Age 10.
They lived in and around Helford from the 12th-13th century to the 19th (their medieval house burned down and was replaced in the Regency). Most of my present extended Cornish family right now live within 10 miles of there - which is weird. In fact given the Cornish immigrated to Cornwall around 1000BC it is quite likely that my family live within a few miles of where their Cornish ancestors lived three thousand years ago
The house has even got its own private chunk of the Helford River. One of the most beautiful corners of Europe. Last sold for £2m about ten years back
Shame we took to the booze and had too many kids. And rebelled against the powers that be. Typical story
Macron just gave a big presidential zeitenwende speech. They’re upping spending too.
I’m kind of hopeful that the mixture of friendship and healthy competition for European defence leadership with Britain could be quite fruitful.
When is our Spring budget? I am not sure that we should be waiting that long before making similar commitments. Starmer really does need to push this forward rapidly. He has doen okay so far, though I disagree with his continued belief that our relationship with the US is salvagable. But he needs to do more and rapidly.
About two weeks - 25th(26th?) of March.
I'm finding it a little disappointing (if not surprising) that they don't seem to be laying the ground of "You oldies - you remember the cold war, you remember your parents talking about the war? Now is your time to pay down for the young'uns who might be fighting for you."
Nonsense or not - that appeal and shaking up some of the disparities seems like quite an opportunity for any tax-hungry government.
The Treasury are dead keen than we stick to one fiscal event per year, so this spring statement will all be about spending. But expect much less doom and gloom than last autumn. Government really need everyone to be feeling confident and up for spending now.
"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."
As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.
Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.
In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.
Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?
Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.
Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.
It's simply nonsense. Starmer has had a suffuciently goid week for his party's polling to be approving, and to be attracting praise from Tories, and Johnson is the last person to either bring Europe and America together, or lead Europe, as a person with a very low prestige in Europe.
Starmer has been poor. It's not entirely his doing. Managing Trump and Vance has been like herding cats. His simpering hand-wringing performance on Thursday could have gone worse. Indeed by the following day it had.
Many of us are disappointed he can't bring himself to say Trump and Vance are a pair of ****s, and Trump can shove the invite from the King up his diapered ar**. To be fair that is exactly what Jenrick and today Kemi have said. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Johnson to declare the same.
Starmer is playing the worst hand dealt out to a UK PM since 1940.
The same with differences applies to Trudeau, Macron, Merz etc. The fact it is partly the fault of all our histories is now not very interesting, and Starmer himself bears little responsibility for the failures since Crimea (2014), Trump's first POTUS (2016) and the failure to listen to his election campaign 2024 in which he set out a totalitarian agenda with astonishing clarity.
So far he has done well. I think even the Tories have spotted this.
That was exactly what we needed from Macron tonight. With he and Merz at the reins, and hopefully Starmer quietly gravitating closer to Europe too, we might actually have a set of governments who are able to effect a meaningful and robust defence policy in the coming years. Fingers crossed.
There is the makings of a decent working group of people with common goals there. Plus Tusk of Poland. Merz seems to have shaken off some of the CDU orthodoxy and caution though he’s never going to have the charisma of Macron.
I wonder how long it will be until a major world leader states plainly that “America is now our enemy”. It surely can’t be long.
We have a major world leader called Keir Starmer. What he says is complicted by some hard facts. These facts include the facility the new enemy has to keep his nuclear installations in Suffolk, and his contracts to maintain your own. This places USA in a slightly different position from China, Russia, Iran etc.
The extent to which this is a global nightmare has yet to come home to us, and it won't be long before talk turns to how USA politics and the institutions of civil society might deal with the matter internally. No-one else in the west possibly can do it.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have to comprehend that everything Sir K and the government say and do is under the constraints mentioned here, and a million more, including stuff we can't know exists. A government of national unity would be entirely understandable. But we will be slow to go that way, as it rather lets the cat out of the bunker about where we stand.
You've expressed much more effectively than I could what I think is the obvious next question in this debacle: what will the Americans do about this? It seems to me that the American public are the only ones with any agency to stop Trump. Will they do it before it's too late? It is, I think, the defining question of our times.
I wonder how long it will be until a major world leader states plainly that “America is now our enemy”. It surely can’t be long.
We have a major world leader called Keir Starmer. What he says is complicted by some hard facts. These facts include the facility the new enemy has to keep his nuclear installations in Suffolk, and his contracts to maintain your own. This places USA in a slightly different position from China, Russia, Iran etc.
The extent to which this is a global nightmare has yet to come home to us, and it won't be long before talk turns to how USA politics and the institutions of civil society might deal with the matter internally. No-one else in the west possibly can do it.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have to comprehend that everything Sir K and the government say and do is under the constraints mentioned here, and a million more, including stuff we can't know exists. A government of national unity would be entirely understandable. But we will be slow to go that way, as it rather lets the cat out of the bunker about where we stand.
You've expressed much more effectively than I could what I think is the obvious next question in this debacle: what will the Americans do about this? It seems to me that the American public are the only ones with any agency to stop Trump. Will they do it before it's too late? It is, I think, the defining question of our times.
They’ll do nothing. They’re supine for the time being.
That was exactly what we needed from Macron tonight. With he and Merz at the reins, and hopefully Starmer quietly gravitating closer to Europe too, we might actually have a set of governments who are able to effect a meaningful and robust defence policy in the coming years. Fingers crossed.
It is easy (and often correct) to bemoan our politicians.
But it strikes me that Starmer, Macron and Merz have all stepped up well in the past week, and are showing the right kind of leadership when it matters.
Is it just possible that we have the right leaders for the times we are in? That would be a pleasant surprise.
Comments
A gardener who was told by Paddy Power her £1m jackpot from an online game was just a computer error has won a High Court case over her winnings.
Corrine Durber, from Gloucestershire, played the Wild Hatter game in October 2020 - a two-part game involving a fruit machine and a wheel of fortune.
After spinning the jackpot wheel, Mrs Durber's iPad Screen displayed she had won the "Monster Jackpot", which was stated as £1,097,132.71.
But the gambling giant only paid out £20,265 telling her she had won the smaller "Daily Jackpot", with the difference attributed to a programming error with the game's display.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gl2n2n14o
Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.
Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.
Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.
The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
I’m kind of hopeful that the mixture of friendship and healthy competition for European defence leadership with Britain could be quite fruitful.
But plenty of people on here have a conniption fit if any poster doesn't call for, and think there will be a Ukrainian takeover of Russia by Thursday afternoon.
Thank you for your compliment, likewise I had thought you more self confident and less herd-like than them.
I assume the state visit won’t go ahead. If it does I’ll change my mind.
Demands all countries address their defence spending and that Europe [with UK] accepts the peace dividend is over and Europe has to stand with Ukraine
He went on to say that across the political divide and all parts of government, thinking has to urgently change to address the new order and many departments of government will have to change and redirect their efforts to the defence of their county and Europe
He certainly seems to have given up on the US and clearly many extra billions will have to be found to create a force capable of standing up to Russia without US assistance
There is no way to return to the pre Trump Era, and ultimately, maybe in a decade or so, Russia may face a far superior military that will contain its warmongering but in the meantime ???
Let's all hope so anyway
(I am just heading in to see a play so might not respond for a while.)
The swing in both elections was about 3% from Conservative to Labour so hardly earth shattering in the context of some of the swings coming out of provincial England for example.
Khan will have to stand on a record which is at best mixed and he has alienated a lot of people especially in the Outer suburbs and we will never know whether, had the Conservatives chosen Paul Scully for example, whether the reault would have been very much closer last May.
By 2028, Khan will have been Mayor for 12 years.
Also, pleased to hear you are now appreciating a beautiful English winter's* evening.
*I go by the astronomical seasons
Though also by what it feels like**, and it doesn't feel like Spring yet.
**What it feels like - to me - and this is deeply subjective:
Spring - about March 21st to about 8th June
Summer - about 8th June to August bank holifay
Autumn - Whenever kids go back to school until Nov 30th.
Winter - first day of advent calendar to the vernal equinox.
The EU and other European nations clearly stepping up as well. But Germany was the bazooka that we weren't sure whether it would launch or not, until now.
Meanwhile, the US moves from supporting Ukraine, to withdrawing support and then onto actively sabotaging in order to force Ukraine to accept capitulation.
I hope Ukraine can see this is a capability gap that will eventually be filled by Europe. But can they hold on that long? Hopefully yes, but I'd be lying if I knew that with any certainty.
Back in the day, a woman would be acquitted of a felony, and her husband convicted, if she said she acted on his orders.
Women have always been less likely than men, to face execution, torture, or imprisonment, than men, for any given offence.
He was busy telling everyone a Trump win was what the world needed . He did this knowing Trumps attitude towards Ukraine so he can STFU now .
Trenchard, on being informed of the creation of the Independent Air Force, asked - “Independent of whom? God?”
The problem with bookmakers generally is they are too accustomed to having the rules skewed in their favour, particularly but not only the ‘palpable error’ rule which is invariably used to disqualify winning bets once the result is known.
There may be an appeal but I'd guess also an insurance claim and perhaps even suing the game's developers (probably not PP themselves).
Many of us are disappointed he can't bring himself to say Trump and Vance are a pair of ****s, and Trump can shove the invite from the King up his diapered ar**. To be fair that is exactly what Jenrick and today Kemi have said. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Johnson to declare the same.
Women’s Justice Board begins plans to send fewer women to prison
Cutting crime and reducing the number of vulnerable women being sent to prison is top of the agenda at the first meeting of the Women’s Justice Board.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/womens-justice-board-begins-plans-to-send-fewer-women-to-prison
Whatever happens from here on in, he's also probably given Britain its greatest week of international prestige since the 1990's.
We would probably be looking at the same 25% tariffs as the E.U, and no input into the Zelensky-Trump relationship that he is having.
He's also making himself more indispensable to Macron, Merz, and Trump.
The extent to which this is a global nightmare has yet to come home to us, and it won't be long before talk turns to how USA politics and the institutions of civil society might deal with the matter internally. No-one else in the west possibly can do it.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have to comprehend that everything Sir K and the government say and do is under the constraints mentioned here, and a million more, including stuff we can't know exists. A government of national unity would be entirely understandable. But we will be slow to go that way, as it rather lets the cat out of the bunker about where we stand.
You have to try to build Euro-Atlantic bridges, either for strategic reasons, or for delaying and smoothing the change to new infrastructure, or both.
I'm finding it a little disappointing (if not surprising) that they don't seem to be laying the ground of "You oldies - you remember the cold war, you remember your parents talking about the war? Now is your time to pay down for the young'uns who might be fighting for you."
Nonsense or not - that appeal and shaking up some of the disparities seems like quite an opportunity for any tax-hungry government.
They lived in and around Helford from the 12th-13th century to the 19th (their medieval house burned down and was replaced in the Regency). Most of my present extended Cornish family right now live within 10 miles of there - which is weird. In fact given the Cornish immigrated to Cornwall around 1000BC it is quite likely that my family live within a few miles of where their Cornish ancestors lived three thousand years ago
The house has even got its own private chunk of the Helford River. One of the most beautiful corners of Europe. Last sold for £2m about ten years back
Shame we took to the booze and had too many kids. And rebelled against the powers that be. Typical story
The same with differences applies to Trudeau, Macron, Merz etc. The fact it is partly the fault of all our histories is now not very interesting, and Starmer himself bears little responsibility for the failures since Crimea (2014), Trump's first POTUS (2016) and the failure to listen to his election campaign 2024 in which he set out a totalitarian agenda with astonishing clarity.
So far he has done well. I think even the Tories have spotted this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkOAUht3G5o
"Spike Milligan's funny acceptance speech for his lifetime achievement award at the British Comedy Awards 1994."
I remember watching it at the time - and it's brought back some very warm memories.
But it strikes me that Starmer, Macron and Merz have all stepped up well in the past week, and are showing the right kind of leadership when it matters.
Is it just possible that we have the right leaders for the times we are in? That would be a pleasant surprise.