Howdy, Stranger!

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

Where do we even start with this? – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,844

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Update from friend in Bangkok


    “I’ve had to check into a hotel, nobody allowed back in our building yet, my room likely covered in plaster. Fucking terrifying! But safe, and thankful.”

    Sounds pretty scary

    If there's no history of earthquakes in Thailand, this could be really problematic in terms of assessing the structural integrity of all those skyscrapers.
    IIRC Bangkok is largely built on alluvial soil. Can one of our engineer or geologist contributors tell whether that is likely to soak up earthquake movements or accentuate them?
    Not necessarily good:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,155
    edited March 28

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    No one in the right mind would visit the US now.

    Nor seek asylum there.

    I’ve cancelled my trip to Vegas in November for the Grand Prix.
    Choosing Vegas for your Grand Prix getaway was a mistake anyway.
    Memories.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,844
    Dura_Ace said:

    Some woman from Ineos Grenadier on R4 this morning saying the tariffs were existential for her company and blaming the EU for not being reasonable with Trump. The Ratcliffe magic touch continues..

    Surely something must be done to save the over-engineered Monaco tractor for the world?

    It could have been so much worse. Jim was looking for big sweeteners from the Welsh Government to move into the former Ford Engine Plant in Bridgend, but the Welsh Government weren't as accomodating as the French.

    As it is the Welsh Government might lose their shirt on AML in St Athan after Trump's tariffs.

    Was Ineos ever a goer? An exhumed and reheated Land Rover dating from 1948?
    “An exhumed and reheated Land Rover dating from 1948?”

    Am I alone in liking that idea?
    Yes, but that's not what a Grenadier is. It's a copy of a 1990 - 2015 LR Defender (the last non-woke LR) with non-hybrid BMW/ZF powertrains that would be better enjoyed in a BMW. They should have built it with the GM LS V8 from the start. That would have given it a distinct point of difference and opened up a whole world of aftermarket lunacy.

    I've no idea why anybody would buy one ahead of a Landcruiser or G-Wagon but apparently people do. Probably just tory c-nts who like Ratcliffe and fracking.
    I think about 80% of their market is in the US.
    Hence the panic.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,005

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    No one in the right mind would visit the US now.

    Nor seek asylum there.

    I’ve cancelled my trip to Vegas in November for the Grand Prix.
    Choosing Vegas for your Grand Prix getaway was a mistake anyway.
    My other half has never been to Vegas and plus my 10 year ban from the Nevada Gaming Commission has expired.
    Apparently there's a nice monorail system (I haven't been, mind).
    It must be the least friendly city to travel in, whether by foot, car, bike, taxi or public transport in the world. And deliberately designed that way to keep your wallet captive wherever you happen to be.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,063
    I'm guessing it was bad before, but it's worse now - 4o image generation looks like an absolute hammer blow to artists everywhere.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,005
    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,063
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    No one in the right mind would visit the US now.

    Nor seek asylum there.

    I’ve cancelled my trip to Vegas in November for the Grand Prix.
    Choosing Vegas for your Grand Prix getaway was a mistake anyway.
    Memories.

    Le stationnement GP.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,868

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    No.
    Just relatively scattered and difficult to extract profitably.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,815

    slade said:

    Con hold in Maldon.

    Nice disused station building (Maldon East).
    Nice battle (991)
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,159

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    They're relatively rare- compared with say iron or silicon.

    But the Earth is blooming huge, and a small percentage of a blooming huge planet is still much more than enough. And, unlike fossil fuels, we're not planning to burn them, so we only need them once.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,934
    edited March 28
    TimS said:

    MaxPB said:

    kamski said:

    Does anyone use Airbnb?

    I use it to check out places, but then it's very often possible to find the owners (or local agents) directly and get the same place 20-30% cheaper.

    It's worth boycotting because co-founder Joe Gebbia - worth billions because of his 7% stake in Airbnb - is part of DOGE and supports Trump. He's also on the board of Tesla.

    Airbnb is very convenient. We've just come to Florence and have a lovely place right on the river with a roof terrace for breakfasts, so much better than a hotel as well because it's our own space where we can spread out for the week.

    The reason why it's so successful is that it they're very, very customer centric. They've become so good at what they do the rental agencies who initially didn't like going on Airbnb and giving them their 25% had to because that's where all the customers are. Absolutely brilliant business model really.
    I usually use the Dutch headquartered Booking.com.

    Airbnb is typically better for the owner as it charges lower fees, and its online visuals are superior, but Booking.com is more convenient for the traveller. I tend to browse on Airbnb then book on Booking.

    Other things I like about it are far greater transparency on cancellation and change options, fully loaded pricing in the listings (Airbnb quotes low numbers then builds them up Ryanair-style with things like cleaning fees), the loyalty points programme, and the fact it includes both hotels and holiday lets.

    It’s just a shame that booking have decided to opt out of Quidco. Today, for example (being another double cashback day), you can get 20% cashback on hotel bookings from Expedia and 16% from Hotels.com, and these are generally the same prices offered on Booking with no cashback at all.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,907
    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,402
    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
    They do.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 5,517
    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
    Dare you to list it under "Social Media" on your ESTA.

    If you can find somewhere foreigners normally make up a large proportion of visitors, you might get some very decent hotel rates though.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,844
    dixiedean said:

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    No.
    Just relatively scattered and difficult to extract profitably.
    They're not even that scattered.
    The US fairly recently discovered a probable 40m tonne lithium deposit at some caldera between Oregon and Nevada - which would make it four times the size of the world's previous largest commercial deposit in Chile.

    It's more that no one had previously produced them on such a large scale.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,671
    edited March 28
    So, Mexico City in a week’s time with about a day and a half of free time in between the work appointments. What to do? (I cancelled my LA stopover).

    I was thinking historical centre of course, Teotihuacan (perhaps a balloon ride), Xochimilco and the canals, Coyoacán? Any other suggestions?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,844

    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    No one in the right mind would visit the US now.

    Nor seek asylum there.

    I’ve cancelled my trip to Vegas in November for the Grand Prix.
    Choosing Vegas for your Grand Prix getaway was a mistake anyway.
    My other half has never been to Vegas and plus my 10 year ban from the Nevada Gaming Commission has expired.
    You offended them with your subtle puns and understated dress style ?
    10 years seems harsh.
    Apparently they take great exception when you tell them

    ‘Las Vegas is just like Glasgow, in both places you can pay for sex with chips.’
    As I suspected, just no appreciation for the subtle puns.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,795

    Foss said:

    Leon said:

    Barnesian said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    I don't know how earthquake proof Myanmar is, I suspect not great. 7.7, depending on depth, doesn't sound good.

    Reportedly very close to surface. And Mandalay.
    An under construction skyscraper in Bangkok has gone.
    All in all, doesn't look rosy.
    My grandson is in Thailand. He's just WhatsApped me.
    "All good, was the most mental couple of minutes of my life but all good!"
    On the upside, Rangoon (and the rest of Myanmar) is pretty low rise. Because they are so poor. They haven’t had the wave of skyscrapers yet. There are some but it’s nothing like Bangkok

    So that might save quite a few lives. Wooden shacks don’t fall down and kill people
    Wooden shacks do, however, burn. Hopefully the locals can get whatever fires may break out quickly under control.
    Back in the Goode Olde Days, when it was wooden low rise, Tokyo would burn to the ground after a big earthquake, quite often.
    Led to the odd massacre of resident ethnic Korean community too.
    Light recreational genocide is the traditional response to disasters in many cultures.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,155
    carnforth said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
    Dare you to list it under "Social Media" on your ESTA.

    If you can find somewhere foreigners normally make up a large proportion of visitors, you might get some very decent hotel rates though.
    Why is Cuba still a State Sponsor of Terrorism?

    https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/faq?lang=en&focusedTopic=About ESTA and The Visa Waiver Program&answerToDisplay=How does Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism impact my travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,402
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    No one in the right mind would visit the US now.

    Nor seek asylum there.

    I’ve cancelled my trip to Vegas in November for the Grand Prix.
    Choosing Vegas for your Grand Prix getaway was a mistake anyway.
    My other half has never been to Vegas and plus my 10 year ban from the Nevada Gaming Commission has expired.
    You offended them with your subtle puns and understated dress style ?
    10 years seems harsh.
    Apparently they take great exception when you tell them

    ‘Las Vegas is just like Glasgow, in both places you can pay for sex with chips.’
    As I suspected, just no appreciation for the subtle puns.
    They took a real dislike to me when I started winning large amounts, I was like Rain Man that week.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,948
    edited March 28
    A

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    They're relatively rare- compared with say iron or silicon.

    But the Earth is blooming huge, and a small percentage of a blooming huge planet is still much more than enough. And, unlike fossil fuels, we're not planning to burn them, so we only need them once.
    A common mistake is mixing REEs up with other minerals you need for green tech, like lithium and cobalt which aren't REEs. Great summary graphic here:

    https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/mineral-requirements-for-clean-energy-transitions
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 5,517
    MattW said:

    carnforth said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
    Dare you to list it under "Social Media" on your ESTA.

    If you can find somewhere foreigners normally make up a large proportion of visitors, you might get some very decent hotel rates though.
    Why is Cuba still a State Sponsor of Terrorism?

    https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/faq?lang=en&focusedTopic=About ESTA and The Visa Waiver Program&answerToDisplay=How does Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism impact my travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program?
    Trump did it just before leaving office. Biden did not reverse it.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,948
    Eabhal said:

    A

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    They're relatively rare- compared with say iron or silicon.

    But the Earth is blooming huge, and a small percentage of a blooming huge planet is still much more than enough. And, unlike fossil fuels, we're not planning to burn them, so we only need them once.
    A common mistake is mixing REEs up with other minerals you need for green tech, like lithium and cobalt which aren't REEs. Great summary graphic here:

    https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/mineral-requirements-for-clean-energy-transitions
    A mistake that NigelB has just made ;)
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 623
    a

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    No one in the right mind would visit the US now.

    Nor seek asylum there.

    I’ve cancelled my trip to Vegas in November for the Grand Prix.
    Choosing Vegas for your Grand Prix getaway was a mistake anyway.
    My other half has never been to Vegas and plus my 10 year ban from the Nevada Gaming Commission has expired.
    Which one is you

    https://gaming.nv.gov/divisions/enforcement/excluded-most-wanted/excluded-list/
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    TimS said:

    So, Mexico City in a week’s time with about a day and a half of free time in between the work appointments. What to do? (I cancelled my LA stopover).

    I was thinking historical centre of course, Teotihuacan (perhaps a balloon ride), Xochimilco and the canals, Coyoacán? Any other suggestions?

    Definitely do the balloon ride.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,112
    dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Techne UK
    @techneUK
    📊NEW POLL: LATEST WESTMINSTER VOTER INTENTIONS

    Lab 25% (-2)
    Reform 24% (+1)
    Cons 23% (=)
    Lib Dems 14% (=)
    Greens 8% (+1)
    SNP 2% (=)
    Others 4% (=)

    👥 1642 Surveyed
    🔎 Field Work: 26th & 27th March 2025
    🗓️ +/- 21st March 2025
    🔗 Data: https://ll.ink/Lb52XT"

    https://x.com/techneUK/status/1905583330533253263

    Ha ha!
    That's Labour largest Party on 200.
    Con/Ref majority of 2.
    Lab/Con majority of 100.
    Much entertainment.
    We can be 100% certain there won't be a Lab/Con coalition I think.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,402
    Battlebus said:

    a

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    No one in the right mind would visit the US now.

    Nor seek asylum there.

    I’ve cancelled my trip to Vegas in November for the Grand Prix.
    Choosing Vegas for your Grand Prix getaway was a mistake anyway.
    My other half has never been to Vegas and plus my 10 year ban from the Nevada Gaming Commission has expired.
    Which one is you

    https://gaming.nv.gov/divisions/enforcement/excluded-most-wanted/excluded-list/
    OMG, Douglas Barr is on the list, he was Howie in The Fall Guy.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,795
    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    It’s not the cost, so much as a combination of not liking (outside China) giant open cast mines and (as you say) processing the tailings with some really fun chemicals.

    The Chinese thing is actually funnier than that. In the carve out of state assets to oligarchs, one idiot ended up with rare earths. He then didn’t invest for decades. Which caused a massive spike in prices as demand spiked. And production fell.

    He then got told that he needed to make up the investment and get production up by Xi and chums.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,402
    The thing I found amusing in Vegas (as a good Muslim boy) is that they offer the gamblers free alcohol, which I passed on to my other half.

    Just imagine how loud I would be drunk and lacking judgment whilst gambling.

    They should be banned from giving gamblers free booze.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 26,155
    carnforth said:

    MattW said:

    carnforth said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
    Dare you to list it under "Social Media" on your ESTA.

    If you can find somewhere foreigners normally make up a large proportion of visitors, you might get some very decent hotel rates though.
    Why is Cuba still a State Sponsor of Terrorism?

    https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/faq?lang=en&focusedTopic=About ESTA and The Visa Waiver Program&answerToDisplay=How does Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism impact my travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program?
    Trump did it just before leaving office. Biden did not reverse it.
    He did at the very end, but Trump flipped it again before the waiting period had expired.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    Nigelb said:

    dixiedean said:

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    No.
    Just relatively scattered and difficult to extract profitably.
    They're not even that scattered.
    The US fairly recently discovered a probable 40m tonne lithium deposit at some caldera between Oregon and Nevada - which would make it four times the size of the world's previous largest commercial deposit in Chile.

    It's more that no one had previously produced them on such a large scale.
    Lithium isn't particularly rare, think about where it is on the periodic table, it's one of the only non helium elements produced during the big bang and it's all over the universe.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,196
    algarkirk said:

    slade said:

    Con hold in Maldon.

    Nice disused station building (Maldon East).
    Nice battle (991)
    Dodgy place though Maldon. Known for a salt.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,925

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I think it is correct to say that I literally hate the inappropriate use of the word "like". My other old fart pet hates include non-Australians who say "no worries" of call me "mate".
    Oh dear. No worries and mate are fairly widespread. I may have even used them myself on occasion. Perhaps even a "no worries, mate".
    Strewth. :)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,844
    .
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    A

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    They're relatively rare- compared with say iron or silicon.

    But the Earth is blooming huge, and a small percentage of a blooming huge planet is still much more than enough. And, unlike fossil fuels, we're not planning to burn them, so we only need them once.
    A common mistake is mixing REEs up with other minerals you need for green tech, like lithium and cobalt which aren't REEs. Great summary graphic here:

    https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/mineral-requirements-for-clean-energy-transitions
    A mistake that NigelB has just made ;)
    Fair cop - but the same comments apply, just more so.
    There's no shortage of deposits in the US. And processing is considerably more messy than separating lithium out.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,361
    viewcode said:

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I think it is correct to say that I literally hate the inappropriate use of the word "like". My other old fart pet hates include non-Australians who say "no worries" of call me "mate".
    Oh dear. No worries and mate are fairly widespread. I may have even used them myself on occasion. Perhaps even a "no worries, mate".
    Strewth. :)
    Too much Neighbours and Home and Away.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,196

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
    They do.
    So, if we all lay off Trump a bit, will he cheer up and be a bit nicer?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,925

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    No one in the right mind would visit the US now.

    Nor seek asylum there.

    I’ve cancelled my trip to Vegas in November for the Grand Prix.
    Choosing Vegas for your Grand Prix getaway was a mistake anyway.
    My other half has never been to Vegas and plus my 10 year ban from the Nevada Gaming Commission has expired.
    Apparently there's a nice monorail system (I haven't been, mind).
    China just built a suspended monorail using maglev with rare earth magnets. If politics wasn't so shit this future would be quite nice.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXXY3f6itHw
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,402

    viewcode said:

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I think it is correct to say that I literally hate the inappropriate use of the word "like". My other old fart pet hates include non-Australians who say "no worries" of call me "mate".
    Oh dear. No worries and mate are fairly widespread. I may have even used them myself on occasion. Perhaps even a "no worries, mate".
    Strewth. :)
    Too much Neighbours and Home and Away.
    You flaming galah.

    I’ve not watched that show but I know the catchphrase.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,361
    TimS said:

    So, Mexico City in a week’s time with about a day and a half of free time in between the work appointments. What to do? (I cancelled my LA stopover).

    I was thinking historical centre of course, Teotihuacan (perhaps a balloon ride), Xochimilco and the canals, Coyoacán? Any other suggestions?

    Frieda Kahlo's house is very nice. Also the Anthropology museum is amazing.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,671

    viewcode said:

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I think it is correct to say that I literally hate the inappropriate use of the word "like". My other old fart pet hates include non-Australians who say "no worries" of call me "mate".
    Oh dear. No worries and mate are fairly widespread. I may have even used them myself on occasion. Perhaps even a "no worries, mate".
    Strewth. :)
    Too much Neighbours and Home and Away.
    My daughter does a mean Aussie accent courtesy of watching H20.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,671

    viewcode said:

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I think it is correct to say that I literally hate the inappropriate use of the word "like". My other old fart pet hates include non-Australians who say "no worries" of call me "mate".
    Oh dear. No worries and mate are fairly widespread. I may have even used them myself on occasion. Perhaps even a "no worries, mate".
    Strewth. :)
    Too much Neighbours and Home and Away.
    You flaming galah.

    I’ve not watched that show but I know the catchphrase.
    That’s an Alf phrase. Another favourite being “don’t come the raw prawn with me”, which I recall means don’t bullshit me.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,402
    Selebian said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
    They do.
    So, if we all lay off Trump a bit, will he cheer up and be a bit nicer?
    Why do you think I’ve stopped calling him the Ayrshire hotelier.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,144
    Foss said:

    Leon said:

    Barnesian said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    I don't know how earthquake proof Myanmar is, I suspect not great. 7.7, depending on depth, doesn't sound good.

    Reportedly very close to surface. And Mandalay.
    An under construction skyscraper in Bangkok has gone.
    All in all, doesn't look rosy.
    My grandson is in Thailand. He's just WhatsApped me.
    "All good, was the most mental couple of minutes of my life but all good!"
    On the upside, Rangoon (and the rest of Myanmar) is pretty low rise. Because they are so poor. They haven’t had the wave of skyscrapers yet. There are some but it’s nothing like Bangkok

    So that might save quite a few lives. Wooden shacks don’t fall down and kill people
    Wooden shacks do, however, burn. Hopefully the locals can get whatever fires may break out quickly under control.
    Yes, that was the primary cause of death in Tokyo in their 1923 earthquake, which killed over 100,000.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,671

    TimS said:

    So, Mexico City in a week’s time with about a day and a half of free time in between the work appointments. What to do? (I cancelled my LA stopover).

    I was thinking historical centre of course, Teotihuacan (perhaps a balloon ride), Xochimilco and the canals, Coyoacán? Any other suggestions?

    Frieda Kahlo's house is very nice. Also the Anthropology museum is amazing.
    Thanks, the anthropology museum is very close to my hotel so I’ll definitely pay it a visit in that case.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,535
    viewcode said:

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I think it is correct to say that I literally hate the inappropriate use of the word "like". My other old fart pet hates include non-Australians who say "no worries" of call me "mate".
    Oh dear. No worries and mate are fairly widespread. I may have even used them myself on occasion. Perhaps even a "no worries, mate".
    Strewth. :)
    Mate is certainly native, East London and Essex (and probably other dialects). My dad would say strewth and he was born in 1937.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,144
    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Techne UK
    @techneUK
    📊NEW POLL: LATEST WESTMINSTER VOTER INTENTIONS

    Lab 25% (-2)
    Reform 24% (+1)
    Cons 23% (=)
    Lib Dems 14% (=)
    Greens 8% (+1)
    SNP 2% (=)
    Others 4% (=)

    👥 1642 Surveyed
    🔎 Field Work: 26th & 27th March 2025
    🗓️ +/- 21st March 2025
    🔗 Data: https://ll.ink/Lb52XT"

    https://x.com/techneUK/status/1905583330533253263

    Ha ha!
    That's Labour largest Party on 200.
    Con/Ref majority of 2.
    Lab/Con majority of 100.
    Much entertainment.
    We can be 100% certain there won't be a Lab/Con coalition I think.
    We can't be 100% certain of anything but it's pretty damn unlikely on a first election with that kind of outcome.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,925

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    They aren't earths either.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,256
    TimS said:

    So, Mexico City in a week’s time with about a day and a half of free time in between the work appointments. What to do? (I cancelled my LA stopover).

    I was thinking historical centre of course, Teotihuacan (perhaps a balloon ride), Xochimilco and the canals, Coyoacán? Any other suggestions?

    Brilliant city centre zoo! One of my favourite cities
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,948
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    A

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    They're relatively rare- compared with say iron or silicon.

    But the Earth is blooming huge, and a small percentage of a blooming huge planet is still much more than enough. And, unlike fossil fuels, we're not planning to burn them, so we only need them once.
    A common mistake is mixing REEs up with other minerals you need for green tech, like lithium and cobalt which aren't REEs. Great summary graphic here:

    https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/mineral-requirements-for-clean-energy-transitions
    A mistake that NigelB has just made ;)
    Fair cop - but the same comments apply, just more so.
    There's no shortage of deposits in the US. And processing is considerably more messy than separating lithium out.
    That paper is interesting because it suggests technology will follow the path of least resistance, so the need for REEs and other tricky minerals might subside (using less copper, more aluminium for power networks, nickel for cobalt, lithium for graphite, REE for copper etc).

    Also the synergies between cheap overnight electricity from renewables and that energy-intensive processing.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,795
    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    They aren't earths either.
    The three key facts about rare earths

    1) they aren’t rare
    2) they aren’t earths
    3) lithium isn’t rare and it isn’t a rare Earth.

    Anyone starts talking about proven reserves, whack ‘em over the head with a cricket bat.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,402
    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    They aren't earths either.
    I have this strange urge to post a picture of one my t-shirts, I also have a hoodie of a similar style.


  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,005
    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    They aren't earths either.
    So what do we call earth that is literally rare.......
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,739
    edited March 28

    viewcode said:

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I think it is correct to say that I literally hate the inappropriate use of the word "like". My other old fart pet hates include non-Australians who say "no worries" of call me "mate".
    Oh dear. No worries and mate are fairly widespread. I may have even used them myself on occasion. Perhaps even a "no worries, mate".
    Strewth. :)
    Mate is certainly native, East London and Essex (and probably other dialects). My dad would say strewth and he was born in 1937.
    'Mate' is common where I am (London-on-Sea). As an older chap I just about tolerate it, except when it's either:
    a) a spotty young barman serving me a pint, or
    b) an estate agent.
    I find it so offensive I have been known to pull out of both pint and house purchases.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,401

    The thing I found amusing in Vegas (as a good Muslim boy) is that they offer the gamblers free alcohol

    Not really free, though

    I had 1 beer

    Spent $200
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,402

    viewcode said:

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I think it is correct to say that I literally hate the inappropriate use of the word "like". My other old fart pet hates include non-Australians who say "no worries" of call me "mate".
    Oh dear. No worries and mate are fairly widespread. I may have even used them myself on occasion. Perhaps even a "no worries, mate".
    Strewth. :)
    Mate is certainly native, East London and Essex (and probably other dialects). My dad would say strewth and he was born in 1937.
    'Mate' is common where I am (London-on-Sea). As an older chap I just about tolerate it, except when it's either:
    a) a spotty young barman serving me a pint, or
    b) an estate agent.
    I find it so offensive I have been known to pull out of both pint and house purchases.
    Amongst my friends/colleagues the only time we use mate is with ‘Oh’ prefixed before it.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,815
    Pulpstar said:

    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Robert Jenrick has taken another swing at the Sentencing Council but his tweet is too long to reproduce here.
    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1904973535791272341

    These decisions need to be taken by elected politicians. Hopefully the government will act to make this so.
    no no no no the law is separate for good reasons, look across the pond for goodness sake
    Parliament is ultimately the top court in the land here, not a "coequal" branch of gov't to SCOTUK. Trump would have a much easier time implementing his ideas if he was PM here.
    Not quite. Nobody knows what the 'top' court is as between parliament, courts and crown. The tie breaker would be the armed forces/20 million people in the street, as it would be and might be in the USA.

    To illustrate: Parliament passes, with royal assent, the 'Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2028', having first removed itself from all human rights provision.

    This act is litigated and reaches the SC. The SC, which by a previous decision is not bound by its own previous decisions, decides the novelty that it has the power to strike down legislation if it is contrary to some sort of fundamental principle and reinstates the old law which makes such actions punishable.

    Discuss the merits and next steps......
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,382
    viewcode said:

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I think it is correct to say that I literally hate the inappropriate use of the word "like". My other old fart pet hates include non-Australians who say "no worries" of call me "mate".
    Oh dear. No worries and mate are fairly widespread. I may have even used them myself on occasion. Perhaps even a "no worries, mate".
    Strewth. :)
    "Strewth! That bloke's got no strides on!"
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,112

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    The word that annoys me is "impact" when not referring to a physical object intercepting something. Otherwise it should be affect, effect, consequence, etc.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,815
    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    They aren't earths either.
    If rare earths are neither earths nor rare, are they examples of Trigger's broom?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,063
    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Robert Jenrick has taken another swing at the Sentencing Council but his tweet is too long to reproduce here.
    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1904973535791272341

    These decisions need to be taken by elected politicians. Hopefully the government will act to make this so.
    no no no no the law is separate for good reasons, look across the pond for goodness sake
    Parliament is ultimately the top court in the land here, not a "coequal" branch of gov't to SCOTUK. Trump would have a much easier time implementing his ideas if he was PM here.
    Not quite. Nobody knows what the 'top' court is as between parliament, courts and crown. The tie breaker would be the armed forces/20 million people in the street, as it would be and might be in the USA.

    To illustrate: Parliament passes, with royal assent, the 'Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2028', having first removed itself from all human rights provision.

    This act is litigated and reaches the SC. The SC, which by a previous decision is not bound by its own previous decisions, decides the novelty that it has the power to strike down legislation if it is contrary to some sort of fundamental principle and reinstates the old law which makes such actions punishable.

    Discuss the merits and next steps......
    Parliament unmakes the Supreme Court.

    Lords tries to stop it.

    The Commons abolishes the Lords.

    Next.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,473
    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
    Why not visit Canada instead? If the US authorities read PB, you can tell them the reason for your change of plan.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,977
    Pulpstar said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Robert Jenrick has taken another swing at the Sentencing Council but his tweet is too long to reproduce here.
    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1904973535791272341

    These decisions need to be taken by elected politicians. Hopefully the government will act to make this so.
    no no no no the law is separate for good reasons, look across the pond for goodness sake
    Parliament is ultimately the top court in the land here, not a "coequal" branch of gov't to SCOTUK. Trump would have a much easier time implementing his ideas if he was PM here.
    Not quite. Nobody knows what the 'top' court is as between parliament, courts and crown. The tie breaker would be the armed forces/20 million people in the street, as it would be and might be in the USA.

    To illustrate: Parliament passes, with royal assent, the 'Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2028', having first removed itself from all human rights provision.

    This act is litigated and reaches the SC. The SC, which by a previous decision is not bound by its own previous decisions, decides the novelty that it has the power to strike down legislation if it is contrary to some sort of fundamental principle and reinstates the old law which makes such actions punishable.

    Discuss the merits and next steps......
    Parliament unmakes the Supreme Court.

    Lords tries to stop it.

    The Commons abolishes the Lords.

    Next.
    The Supreme Court of the US could be unmade by a constitutional amendment. The only difference is the ease of doing that. Ours is easier because a simple majority in (both houses of) Parliament is all that is required.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,759

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I find "like" is kind of similar to "you know" which people use to try and put a break in a sentence while trying to think what they are going to say next (especially if they're not a confident speaker)

    Overuse/misuse can be annoying though.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,581
    eristdoof said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.

    Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?
    But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.

    I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.
    Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.

    You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.
    So you were confused about whether the person saying "my face was literally on fire" was speaking metaphorically?

    Most people can work things out from the context.

    It's actually a good way of bringing a dead metaphor back to life. Though that only really works as long as pedants keep complaining, so it's good that they do this service.

    I wasn't confused, because it didn't happen to me. And the demerit does not lie in the confusion caused when stupid people abuse the word 'literally' - it lies in no longer being able to use the word 'literally' to describe something that 'literally' happened, because it has become devalued.
    But you have just given an example yourself where that meaning of literally was quite clear, so it seems to me that you are the stupid person if anything.
    I've explained quite clearly why I don't think this word being used to mean the opposite of its true meaning isn't a positive development in the language. You've given brain farts in response. I think you are reflexively in favour of any change to the language, however ugly or stupid, and probably also in favour of any modern building, however ugly and stupid, and any modern art, however ugly or stupid, because that chimes in with your politics and makes you feel modern. So it seems to me that you're the stupid person if anything.
    You start by calling people you disagree with stupid, and when called out on your own stupidity, you go on a rant about how I must love ugly buildings? I think you comprehensively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.
    Why is 'literally' such a troublesome word?

    TLDR: "Literally" has been used as an intensifier for a long time. It's probably best not to use it in that way, but there's little point in railing aginst people who do.

    A major reason why 'literally' gets singled out, is because its (informal) usage is the *antonym* of the word that should be used: 'metaphorically'. The original speaker really meant "My face was metaphorically on fire".

    This alone means that many of the 'misuses' of literally are funny when the listener/reader takes the sentence literally.
    So what you are literally saying is that literally means metaphorically not literally
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,795
    algarkirk said:

    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Trump now appears to be demanding reparations from Ukraine.

    Trump now wants entire Ukrainian resource revenue in updated minerals pact offer

    The new deal requires Ukraine to repay all free US aid since 2022, plus pay 4% interest per year before it can access any profits. Zelenskyy says the terms keep changing.

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1905547409091871176

    What remains remarkable, unless I’ve missed it, is the silence from Democrats on most of the Trump administration’s foreign policy twatteries.

    Have they said anything reassuring towards: Canada, Greenland, the entire continent of Europe, or even Ukraine? Anything to suggest they would reverse unfair extortion on minerals or power stations?
    Yes, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jan/08/trump-congress-biden-pardons-politics-latest-updates "Blinken and top Democrats push back against Trump bid for US to take over Greenland – as it happened"
    Good.
    I disagree. I have to say tims and Bonde, I started out in your place thinking this was wild and wrong, but after investigation and analysis, it’s another of those things I have changed my mind about. These things in the earth are important to the technology and security future, a lot of its in China, who are trying to get even more around the world under contract even Greenland. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing the West and US sign a deal with Greenland, and put other places on contract too.

    I’ll go as far as to say, those out of Sleepy Joe’s administration reacting by publicly saying US shouldn’t get this under contract, are being a bit stupid and handing the “ahead of the game” initiative to the MAGA.
    Is there an app you can recommend that will make sense of this post?
    No. But I can post again the links I already posted in last hours Robert asked for, that should clearly explain my thinking.

    I’m happy to name names.
    Howard Lutnick certainly stands to gain. But Primarily it’s Ronald Lauder influencing this. Trump is completely on board with everything Lauder is saying on needing Greenland in the National
    Interest.
    https://fortune.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-mining-defense/

    The Broligarchs gain too.
    https://www.levernews.com/trumps-tech-donors-have-big-plans-for_greenland/

    Here’s a flavour of the geo political queuing up to be involved in Greenland mining alongside Trumps America, and that it’s not whimsical from Trump, it’s solidly geo political and future looking.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5jwvw9nlo

    Conversely, the now dead Ukraine/US minerals deal, Biden sounded out US industry on the Kyiv offer, there was zilch interest in spending the next century in Eastern Ukraine. After that Biden White House did not take the Ukraine offer of a deal remotely seriously. I’m not sure if Trump ever did either.
    https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Feb28-1.html

    I predict it again, US Ukraine Earths Deal dead, Trumps crew (including Starmer’s UK?) mining Greenland before 2028.
    Why don't they just move in the US, which has plentiful (proven) resources ?

    Rare earth minerals are a virtual Chinese monopoly not because they have more of them, but because processing them is fairly costly, and takes a lot of investment (and also can be environmentally damaging).
    The Chinese threw a lot of money at the problem, didn't spend years on environmental permits, and therefore took most of the world market.

    Greenland is fairly irrelevant to all of that.
    So rare earths aren't literally rare?
    They aren't earths either.
    If rare earths are neither earths nor rare, are they examples of Trigger's broom?
    They have never been rare or earths.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,473

    viewcode said:

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I think it is correct to say that I literally hate the inappropriate use of the word "like". My other old fart pet hates include non-Australians who say "no worries" of call me "mate".
    Oh dear. No worries and mate are fairly widespread. I may have even used them myself on occasion. Perhaps even a "no worries, mate".
    Strewth. :)
    "Strewth! That bloke's got no strides on!"
    I wonder if there’s an Aussie politician somewhere called Mel Trouser.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,815
    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Techne UK
    @techneUK
    📊NEW POLL: LATEST WESTMINSTER VOTER INTENTIONS

    Lab 25% (-2)
    Reform 24% (+1)
    Cons 23% (=)
    Lib Dems 14% (=)
    Greens 8% (+1)
    SNP 2% (=)
    Others 4% (=)

    👥 1642 Surveyed
    🔎 Field Work: 26th & 27th March 2025
    🗓️ +/- 21st March 2025
    🔗 Data: https://ll.ink/Lb52XT"

    https://x.com/techneUK/status/1905583330533253263

    Ha ha!
    That's Labour largest Party on 200.
    Con/Ref majority of 2.
    Lab/Con majority of 100.
    Much entertainment.
    We can be 100% certain there won't be a Lab/Con coalition I think.
    I think that now falls a bit short of 100%. A number of possibilities arise like:

    Reform campaign on a racist and pro Trumpist/Vanceist ticket and do well, the LDs do badly; leaving aside Reform the only two parties that get to 325 seats are Lab + Con, and a week before the election the USA formally leaves NATO and starts to occupy Canada from Greenland and the USA borders.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,795
    edited March 28
    a

    viewcode said:

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I think it is correct to say that I literally hate the inappropriate use of the word "like". My other old fart pet hates include non-Australians who say "no worries" of call me "mate".
    Oh dear. No worries and mate are fairly widespread. I may have even used them myself on occasion. Perhaps even a "no worries, mate".
    Strewth. :)
    "Strewth! That bloke's got no strides on!"
    I wonder if there’s an Aussie politician somewhere called Mel Trouser.
    Many years ago, I passed a billboard, in St Lucia, advocating a Mr Robber for Parliament (assembly?)

    Never wanted the vote so badly….
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,267
    Our constitution has evolved the way it has because each time a norm has been tested everyone has a bit of a power play and then everyone pretty much shrugs and carries on with the new rules once that’s been resolved.
  • jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 795
    Arundel being Arundel, I hear some very obscure and often pleasing names given to children by parents. But I've just heard an exasperated mum just outside the bookshop door say, 'Please do get in the car, Shadrach.', which is just about the best so far.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,559

    Arundel being Arundel, I hear some very obscure and often pleasing names given to children by parents. But I've just heard an exasperated mum just outside the bookshop door say, 'Please do get in the car, Shadrach.', which is just about the best so far.

    It would be disappointing if he didn't have two brothers, Meshach and Abednego.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,815
    Pulpstar said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Robert Jenrick has taken another swing at the Sentencing Council but his tweet is too long to reproduce here.
    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1904973535791272341

    These decisions need to be taken by elected politicians. Hopefully the government will act to make this so.
    no no no no the law is separate for good reasons, look across the pond for goodness sake
    Parliament is ultimately the top court in the land here, not a "coequal" branch of gov't to SCOTUK. Trump would have a much easier time implementing his ideas if he was PM here.
    Not quite. Nobody knows what the 'top' court is as between parliament, courts and crown. The tie breaker would be the armed forces/20 million people in the street, as it would be and might be in the USA.

    To illustrate: Parliament passes, with royal assent, the 'Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2028', having first removed itself from all human rights provision.

    This act is litigated and reaches the SC. The SC, which by a previous decision is not bound by its own previous decisions, decides the novelty that it has the power to strike down legislation if it is contrary to some sort of fundamental principle and reinstates the old law which makes such actions punishable.

    Discuss the merits and next steps......
    Parliament unmakes the Supreme Court.

    Lords tries to stop it.

    The Commons abolishes the Lords.

    Next.
    On step one, if the SC is unmade, then the highest court is the Court of Appeal, which then affirms the now abolished SC's judgment that the Torture Act is struck down.

    The abolition of the HoL makes no difference as the SC is no longer part of the HoL structure; neither of course is the Court of Appeal.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,815

    Arundel being Arundel, I hear some very obscure and often pleasing names given to children by parents. But I've just heard an exasperated mum just outside the bookshop door say, 'Please do get in the car, Shadrach.', which is just about the best so far.

    Not Arundel only. I know a Shadrach who has two half brothers currently in prison for separate murders. Beat that, Duke of Norfolk.
  • jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 795

    Arundel being Arundel, I hear some very obscure and often pleasing names given to children by parents. But I've just heard an exasperated mum just outside the bookshop door say, 'Please do get in the car, Shadrach.', which is just about the best so far.

    It would be disappointing if he didn't have two brothers, Meshach and Abednego.
    They're probably at school.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,977
    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Robert Jenrick has taken another swing at the Sentencing Council but his tweet is too long to reproduce here.
    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1904973535791272341

    These decisions need to be taken by elected politicians. Hopefully the government will act to make this so.
    no no no no the law is separate for good reasons, look across the pond for goodness sake
    Parliament is ultimately the top court in the land here, not a "coequal" branch of gov't to SCOTUK. Trump would have a much easier time implementing his ideas if he was PM here.
    Not quite. Nobody knows what the 'top' court is as between parliament, courts and crown. The tie breaker would be the armed forces/20 million people in the street, as it would be and might be in the USA.

    To illustrate: Parliament passes, with royal assent, the 'Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2028', having first removed itself from all human rights provision.

    This act is litigated and reaches the SC. The SC, which by a previous decision is not bound by its own previous decisions, decides the novelty that it has the power to strike down legislation if it is contrary to some sort of fundamental principle and reinstates the old law which makes such actions punishable.

    Discuss the merits and next steps......
    Parliament unmakes the Supreme Court.

    Lords tries to stop it.

    The Commons abolishes the Lords.

    Next.
    On step one, if the SC is unmade, then the highest court is the Court of Appeal, which then affirms the now abolished SC's judgment that the Torture Act is struck down.

    The abolition of the HoL makes no difference as the SC is no longer part of the HoL structure; neither of course is the Court of Appeal.
    In reality, what would should happen in our constitution is that the Prime Minister then calls an election with the issue front and centre in its manifesto. If it wins, Parliament then passes a single line Act "Notwithstanding the judgment of X..." and the courts should back down.

    That is how constitutional crisis' are supposed to be dealt with historically.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,815
    edit
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,815

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Robert Jenrick has taken another swing at the Sentencing Council but his tweet is too long to reproduce here.
    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1904973535791272341

    These decisions need to be taken by elected politicians. Hopefully the government will act to make this so.
    no no no no the law is separate for good reasons, look across the pond for goodness sake
    Parliament is ultimately the top court in the land here, not a "coequal" branch of gov't to SCOTUK. Trump would have a much easier time implementing his ideas if he was PM here.
    Not quite. Nobody knows what the 'top' court is as between parliament, courts and crown. The tie breaker would be the armed forces/20 million people in the street, as it would be and might be in the USA.

    To illustrate: Parliament passes, with royal assent, the 'Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2028', having first removed itself from all human rights provision.

    This act is litigated and reaches the SC. The SC, which by a previous decision is not bound by its own previous decisions, decides the novelty that it has the power to strike down legislation if it is contrary to some sort of fundamental principle and reinstates the old law which makes such actions punishable.

    Discuss the merits and next steps......
    Parliament unmakes the Supreme Court.

    Lords tries to stop it.

    The Commons abolishes the Lords.

    Next.
    On step one, if the SC is unmade, then the highest court is the Court of Appeal, which then affirms the now abolished SC's judgment that the Torture Act is struck down.

    The abolition of the HoL makes no difference as the SC is no longer part of the HoL structure; neither of course is the Court of Appeal.
    In reality, what would should happen in our constitution is that the Prime Minister then calls an election with the issue front and centre in its manifesto. If it wins, Parliament then passes a single line Act "Notwithstanding the judgment of X..." and the courts should back down.

    That is how constitutional crisis' are supposed to be dealt with historically.
    Not quite. By this point the courts have established the principle that courts can, in extremis, strike down acts of parliament. So, the new one line act is litigated, and applying the principle, the Court of Appeal strikes it down again.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,382

    viewcode said:

    Just catching up, may I say that I literally couldn't give a flying fuck about the use/misuse of the word 'literally'?

    My daughter's interspersion of the word 'like' several times in each protracted sentence distresses me immensely, however.

    I think it is correct to say that I literally hate the inappropriate use of the word "like". My other old fart pet hates include non-Australians who say "no worries" of call me "mate".
    Oh dear. No worries and mate are fairly widespread. I may have even used them myself on occasion. Perhaps even a "no worries, mate".
    Strewth. :)
    Mate is certainly native, East London and Essex (and probably other dialects). My dad would say strewth and he was born in 1937.
    'Mate' is common where I am (London-on-Sea). As an older chap I just about tolerate it, except when it's either:
    a) a spotty young barman serving me a pint, or
    b) an estate agent.
    I find it so offensive I have been known to pull out of both pint and house purchases.
    Amongst my friends/colleagues the only time we use mate is with ‘Oh’ prefixed before it.
    "Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaate!" - Sadiq Khan.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,744

    Arundel being Arundel, I hear some very obscure and often pleasing names given to children by parents. But I've just heard an exasperated mum just outside the bookshop door say, 'Please do get in the car, Shadrach.', which is just about the best so far.

    It would be disappointing if he didn't have two brothers, Meshach and Abednego.
    They're probably at school.
    Or having a stroll in the furnace.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,144
    edited March 28
    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Robert Jenrick has taken another swing at the Sentencing Council but his tweet is too long to reproduce here.
    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1904973535791272341

    These decisions need to be taken by elected politicians. Hopefully the government will act to make this so.
    no no no no the law is separate for good reasons, look across the pond for goodness sake
    Parliament is ultimately the top court in the land here, not a "coequal" branch of gov't to SCOTUK. Trump would have a much easier time implementing his ideas if he was PM here.
    Not quite. Nobody knows what the 'top' court is as between parliament, courts and crown. The tie breaker would be the armed forces/20 million people in the street, as it would be and might be in the USA.

    To illustrate: Parliament passes, with royal assent, the 'Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2028', having first removed itself from all human rights provision.

    This act is litigated and reaches the SC. The SC, which by a previous decision is not bound by its own previous decisions, decides the novelty that it has the power to strike down legislation if it is contrary to some sort of fundamental principle and reinstates the old law which makes such actions punishable.

    Discuss the merits and next steps......
    'Nobody knows' in a Donald Trump sense.

    In reality, the Bill of Rights 1689 is very clear about who is top dog (in England and Wales anyway; there *may* be some wriggle room in Scotland). Specifically:

    "That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament."

    In other words, a Bill once passed into an Act according to Parliament's internal processes cannot be challenged as valid or otherwise. If a court tried, we'd be into rule of recognition territory. Presumably if the Supreme Court decided to try and strike down legislation, the Speaker could, in the first instance, declare their ruling illegal, void and null and if that wasn't sufficient, parliament could impeach those members of the Supreme Court who had arrogated an unlawful and unconstitutional power to themselves.

    Impeachment is generally thought to be obsolete and for most purposes, is. However, a rogue Supreme Court is one circumstance where the legal and judicial processes by definition could not operate as its members could not sit accused before itself.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,977
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Robert Jenrick has taken another swing at the Sentencing Council but his tweet is too long to reproduce here.
    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1904973535791272341

    These decisions need to be taken by elected politicians. Hopefully the government will act to make this so.
    no no no no the law is separate for good reasons, look across the pond for goodness sake
    Parliament is ultimately the top court in the land here, not a "coequal" branch of gov't to SCOTUK. Trump would have a much easier time implementing his ideas if he was PM here.
    Not quite. Nobody knows what the 'top' court is as between parliament, courts and crown. The tie breaker would be the armed forces/20 million people in the street, as it would be and might be in the USA.

    To illustrate: Parliament passes, with royal assent, the 'Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2028', having first removed itself from all human rights provision.

    This act is litigated and reaches the SC. The SC, which by a previous decision is not bound by its own previous decisions, decides the novelty that it has the power to strike down legislation if it is contrary to some sort of fundamental principle and reinstates the old law which makes such actions punishable.

    Discuss the merits and next steps......
    Parliament unmakes the Supreme Court.

    Lords tries to stop it.

    The Commons abolishes the Lords.

    Next.
    On step one, if the SC is unmade, then the highest court is the Court of Appeal, which then affirms the now abolished SC's judgment that the Torture Act is struck down.

    The abolition of the HoL makes no difference as the SC is no longer part of the HoL structure; neither of course is the Court of Appeal.
    In reality, what would should happen in our constitution is that the Prime Minister then calls an election with the issue front and centre in its manifesto. If it wins, Parliament then passes a single line Act "Notwithstanding the judgment of X..." and the courts should back down.

    That is how constitutional crisis' are supposed to be dealt with historically.
    Not quite. By this point the courts have established the principle that courts can, in extremis, strike down acts of parliament. So, the new one line act is litigated, and applying the principle, the Court of Appeal strikes it down again.
    In theory, but unlikely when faced with a clear popular mandate. The "law" is no shield when faced with popular contempt.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,144

    Pulpstar said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tres said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Robert Jenrick has taken another swing at the Sentencing Council but his tweet is too long to reproduce here.
    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1904973535791272341

    These decisions need to be taken by elected politicians. Hopefully the government will act to make this so.
    no no no no the law is separate for good reasons, look across the pond for goodness sake
    Parliament is ultimately the top court in the land here, not a "coequal" branch of gov't to SCOTUK. Trump would have a much easier time implementing his ideas if he was PM here.
    Not quite. Nobody knows what the 'top' court is as between parliament, courts and crown. The tie breaker would be the armed forces/20 million people in the street, as it would be and might be in the USA.

    To illustrate: Parliament passes, with royal assent, the 'Legalisation of Torturing Children for Fun Act 2028', having first removed itself from all human rights provision.

    This act is litigated and reaches the SC. The SC, which by a previous decision is not bound by its own previous decisions, decides the novelty that it has the power to strike down legislation if it is contrary to some sort of fundamental principle and reinstates the old law which makes such actions punishable.

    Discuss the merits and next steps......
    Parliament unmakes the Supreme Court.

    Lords tries to stop it.

    The Commons abolishes the Lords.

    Next.
    The Supreme Court of the US could be unmade by a constitutional amendment. The only difference is the ease of doing that. Ours is easier because a simple majority in (both houses of) Parliament is all that is required.
    Or alternatively, a simple majority in the Commons and a year's time (and probably a bit more, to conclude parliamentary processes).
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,815

    eristdoof said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.

    Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?
    But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.

    I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.
    Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.

    You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.
    So you were confused about whether the person saying "my face was literally on fire" was speaking metaphorically?

    Most people can work things out from the context.

    It's actually a good way of bringing a dead metaphor back to life. Though that only really works as long as pedants keep complaining, so it's good that they do this service.

    I wasn't confused, because it didn't happen to me. And the demerit does not lie in the confusion caused when stupid people abuse the word 'literally' - it lies in no longer being able to use the word 'literally' to describe something that 'literally' happened, because it has become devalued.
    But you have just given an example yourself where that meaning of literally was quite clear, so it seems to me that you are the stupid person if anything.
    I've explained quite clearly why I don't think this word being used to mean the opposite of its true meaning isn't a positive development in the language. You've given brain farts in response. I think you are reflexively in favour of any change to the language, however ugly or stupid, and probably also in favour of any modern building, however ugly and stupid, and any modern art, however ugly or stupid, because that chimes in with your politics and makes you feel modern. So it seems to me that you're the stupid person if anything.
    You start by calling people you disagree with stupid, and when called out on your own stupidity, you go on a rant about how I must love ugly buildings? I think you comprehensively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.
    Why is 'literally' such a troublesome word?

    TLDR: "Literally" has been used as an intensifier for a long time. It's probably best not to use it in that way, but there's little point in railing aginst people who do.

    A major reason why 'literally' gets singled out, is because its (informal) usage is the *antonym* of the word that should be used: 'metaphorically'. The original speaker really meant "My face was metaphorically on fire".

    This alone means that many of the 'misuses' of literally are funny when the listener/reader takes the sentence literally.
    So what you are literally saying is that literally means metaphorically not literally
    That sentence is a nice example of why it is essential that words are capable of having objective and fixable meanings rather than merely being decided by use (pace Wittgenstein etc). If you go by 'use' it is impossible to know what the sentence means.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,063
    edited March 28
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4

    'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.'

    "Replace fifth with thousandth"
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,144
    Pulpstar said:

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4

    'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.'

    "Replace fifth with thousandth"

    The Lords would reject that.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,428
    algarkirk said:

    Robert Jenrick has taken another swing at the Sentencing Council but his tweet is too long to reproduce here.
    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1904973535791272341

    Mahmoud emboldened this toxic quango by backing down when she had challenged them. Absolute amateur hour.
    It's all very well to call a quango 'toxic' but quangos are the creation of government and parliament. If parliament wanted the council's guidance to only go into effect upon the approval of the government or parliament, they are uniquely and powerfully in a position to have said so or to say so now.

    If you don't like a quango or its powers or what it actually does, then the place to put it right is parliament, where the Lord Chancellor's government has a three trillion majority.
    I know? As Robert Jenrick says in his Tweet, the Tories amended the Act to allow the Minister to approve the guidelines, and Labour (despite Mahmoud's protests) voted down the amendment.

    Other than that your point was great.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,063
    edited March 28

    Pulpstar said:

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4

    'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.'

    "Replace fifth with thousandth"

    The Lords would reject that.
    Other peers can be made by the PM...
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,144
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4

    'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.'

    "Replace fifth with thousandth"

    The Lords would reject that.
    Other peers can be made by the PM...
    Other peers can be made by the king. He doesn't have to accept every nomination put forward. There's also a limit on how fast they can be created.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,581
    MattW said:

    carnforth said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
    Dare you to list it under "Social Media" on your ESTA.

    If you can find somewhere foreigners normally make up a large proportion of visitors, you might get some very decent hotel rates though.
    Why is Cuba still a State Sponsor of Terrorism?

    https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/faq?lang=en&focusedTopic=About ESTA and The Visa Waiver Program&answerToDisplay=How does Cuba’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism impact my travel to t
    he%20United%20States%20under%20the%20Visa%20Waiver%20Program%3F
    Because there are lots of Cuban voters in Florida

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,581
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    MattW said:

    Sir William Browder KCMG @Billbrowder
    BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia


    https://theins.press/en/news/280037

    I have to say that our plans of celebrating our ruby wedding with an extended trip to the US later this year are somewhat under review. Do we know if they read PB?
    They do.
    I'd just like to say what an excellent job Donald Trump is doing and what a clever and articulate man JD Vance is. Any suggestion I may have made to the contrary has clearly been taken out of context.
    What do you mean that Trump isn’t clever and articulate? And that JD Vance isn’t going an excellent job?

    The slammer for you, Mr L.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,063
    edited March 28

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4

    'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.'

    "Replace fifth with thousandth"

    The Lords would reject that.
    Other peers can be made by the PM...
    Other peers can be made by the king. He doesn't have to accept every nomination put forward. There's also a limit on how fast they can be created.
    Orf to the tower for Charlie !

    Sorry but the British system is just fundamentally weaker at stopping a bad actor PM and party than the US one. It's only because our worst PMs haven't fundamentally been bad actors that everyone thinks our system is somehow more robust. It simply isn't the case.
    I suppose the king could try and stop it all, which means it comes down to who a MEGA rerun of the 1640s.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,333
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4

    'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.'

    "Replace fifth with thousandth"

    The Lords would reject that.
    Other peers can be made by the PM...
    Indeed. There is not much in the UK's constitution that would stop a party with a majority in the Commons installing an authoritarian dictatorship, although theoretically the monarch could stop such a process.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,382
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4

    'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.'

    "Replace fifth with thousandth"

    The Lords would reject that.
    Other peers can be made by the PM...
    Other peers can be made by the king. He doesn't have to accept every nomination put forward. There's also a limit on how fast they can be created.
    Orf to the tower for Charlie !

    Sorry but the British system is just fundamentally weaker at stopping a bad actor PM and party than the US one. It's only because our worst PMs haven't fundamentally been bad actors that everyone thinks our system is somehow more robust. It simply isn't the case.
    I suppose the king could try and stop it all, which means it comes down to who a MEGA rerun of the 1640s.
    Maybe he refused to visit Birmingham so as to avoid walking into uncollected refuse?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,581
    algarkirk said:

    eristdoof said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.

    Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?
    But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.

    I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.
    Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.

    You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.
    So you were confused about whether the person saying "my face was literally on fire" was speaking metaphorically?

    Most people can work things out from the context.

    It's actually a good way of bringing a dead metaphor back to life. Though that only really works as long as pedants keep complaining, so it's good that they do this service.

    I wasn't confused, because it didn't happen to me. And the demerit does not lie in the confusion caused when stupid people abuse the word 'literally' - it lies in no longer being able to use the word 'literally' to describe something that 'literally' happened, because it has become devalued.
    But you have just given an example yourself where that meaning of literally was quite clear, so it seems to me that you are the stupid person if anything.
    I've explained quite clearly why I don't think this word being used to mean the opposite of its true meaning isn't a positive development in the language. You've given brain farts in response. I think you are reflexively in favour of any change to the language, however ugly or stupid, and probably also in favour of any modern building, however ugly and stupid, and any modern art, however ugly or stupid, because that chimes in with your politics and makes you feel modern. So it seems to me that you're the stupid person if anything.
    You start by calling people you disagree with stupid, and when called out on your own stupidity, you go on a rant about how I must love ugly buildings? I think you comprehensively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.
    Why is 'literally' such a troublesome word?

    TLDR: "Literally" has been used as an intensifier for a long time. It's probably best not to use it in that way, but there's little point in railing aginst people who do.

    A major reason why 'literally' gets singled out, is because its (informal) usage is the *antonym* of the word that should be used: 'metaphorically'. The original speaker really meant "My face was metaphorically on fire".

    This alone means that many of the 'misuses' of literally are funny when the listener/reader takes the sentence literally.

    So what you are literally saying is that literally means metaphorically not literally
    That sentence is a nice example of why it is essential that words are capable of having objective and fixable meanings rather than merely being decided by use (pace Wittgenstein etc). If you go by 'use' it is impossible to know what the sentence means.
    It was carefully crafted to achieve that objective. Thank you
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,144
    edited March 28
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4

    'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.'

    "Replace fifth with thousandth"

    The Lords would reject that.
    Other peers can be made by the PM...
    Other peers can be made by the king. He doesn't have to accept every nomination put forward. There's also a limit on how fast they can be created.
    Orf to the tower for Charlie !

    Sorry but the British system is just fundamentally weaker at stopping a bad actor PM and party than the US one. It's only because our worst PMs haven't fundamentally been bad actors that everyone thinks our system is somehow more robust. It simply isn't the case.
    I suppose the king could try and stop it all, which means it comes down to who a MEGA rerun of the 1640s.
    In reality, to the extent that the king might get involved directly, his easiest option would simply be to dissolve parliament and let the people decide.

    But yes, the UK constitution is less robust against autocratic types than the US - mainly because since the last really big constitutional crisis, the executive has migrated from the crown into parliament. In 1689, parliament was the check on the executive (not a very effective one, it has to be said); now it's its power-base
Sign In or Register to comment.