Brecon is just an anglicisation of original Brychan/Brycheiniog. But Beacons was a made up name - made up for marketing the National Park, and never previously used. The peaks have always been named by their Welsh names only, eg Pen-y-fan, Fan Fawr etc. Bannau is the plural of Fan/Ban and so Bannau Brycheiniog simply means the Brecon Fans....live with it.
So he’s suggesting all the kids are running around with guns and therefore the IDF genocide is acceptable .
He can go fxck himself and his desperate attempts to justify the slaughter .
That is such a depressing tweet (and that's a hell of a field). It makes me really sad.
It was so sad seeing the little boy desperate for food in Gaza on the BBC clip . Children are crying because of the hunger . The west should be utterly ashamed .
And what is their government doing about it? Using the children as human shields.
Jesus, will people stop calling it Turkiye. We don't suddenly have to change the English spelling for Germany or Spain. That u with an umlaut thing doesn't exist in English. I bet the Turks have a Turksih word for England/ Great Britain/ UK. (I dunno. They may not.)
I think Czechia is now officially preferred by the Czechs (or Czechias?) And we don't go on about Peking any more, do we? Things change.
Turks often call England İngiltere, which strikes me as very much like the French and the Spanish.
My wife and son both have extended-Latin letters in their names. My wife has an s-cedilla (Ş), and my son has a dotted I (İ). You get used to working out how to produce them on various computer systems.
Incidentally, if you find this confusing, feel sorry for poor Khazaks, who are moving from a Cyrillic-based alphabet to a Latin-based one. Then again, they should be used to it, as in Soviet times they moved from an Arabic alphabet to a Latin one, then to Cyrillic! Four alphabet changes in about a century...
I don't mind about Czechia and Peking, because I think those were correctings of misunderstandings.
The i already has a dot! Why does it need another? What does that do? What language is that from?
Anyway, I'm going to go on spelling Turkey as Turkey until the day that I die - like my gran did with her stoic refusal to change her pronunciation of Kenya from Key-nya to Ken-ya. Unless I'm writing to a Turk, of course.
More generally, on reflection, I find any attempt of other people to change words which were previously perfectly acceptable very irritating. Whether its products, names of pubs, names of cities, renaming 'personnel' as 'human resources', stadiums...
Personnel to Human Resources just shows how workplaces have changed how they see employees.
As Personnel we were people, human beings. As Human Resources we are just another resource to use, like raw material or machinery. The human element is devalued.
I don't know if is still the case, but there seemed a push to refer to 'customers' in the public sector for awhile, to refer to the public. Felt very weird.
Brecon is just an anglicisation of original Brychan/Brycheiniog. But Beacons was a made up name - made up for marketing the National Park, and never previously used. The peaks have always been named by their Welsh names only, eg Pen-y-fan, Fan Fawr etc. Bannau is the plural of Fan/Ban and so Bannau Brycheiniog simply means the Brecon Fans....live with it.
A *minimum* of 79% of Welsh people in 2021 have English as their main language.
Learn something every day. I didn't know MPs were obliged to declare their religious beliefs. Do they fill out a form to record their morals and principles?
It's an interesting idea but how many MPs would have anything to say?
This remains an idea that is right in principle but a dreadful bill addressing the wrong problems in an unsatisfactory way.
It seems to have been a slapdash approach, and given the general support for the principle seems to be there among MPs I don't see why they couldn't start over (it wouldn't need to be from scratch) without a risk of it being dropped forever, but the impression is that that is a big worry, that opponents will gain momentum if that happens, so better this bill than no bill.
I would say better no bill than this bill, and I say that as someone not unsympathetic to the concept.
Depends whether we're more sympathetic to people threatened with a murder charge than to people threatened with murder.
So he’s suggesting all the kids are running around with guns and therefore the IDF genocide is acceptable .
He can go fxck himself and his desperate attempts to justify the slaughter .
That is such a depressing tweet (and that's a hell of a field). It makes me really sad.
It was so sad seeing the little boy desperate for food in Gaza on the BBC clip . Children are crying because of the hunger . The west should be utterly ashamed .
And what is their government doing about it? Using the children as human shields.
You’ve swallowed the IDF line and are seeking to justify the mass slaughter of children. Words fail me ….
And if their religious beliefs influence how they voted on this bill, so what?
Indeed, but it seems to be the case that Rantzen has an issue with it and is using it in an accusatory manner.
it should NOT be decided by religious fanatics though so she is correct, they were not elected to espouse their religious beliefs to the detriment of the general public. Bring out the tumbrils.
I'll give you a like for that. I have my reservations about assisted dying, but I'd rather we decided it for human reasons rather than because of what someone's god thinks.
What is your basis for saying that religious reasons are not human reasons? And how do you tell the two apart?
More to the point, how do you distinguish a religious human community from any other human community based around belief, a set of principles, a praxis, or a rule of life?
Jesus, will people stop calling it Turkiye. We don't suddenly have to change the English spelling for Germany or Spain. That u with an umlaut thing doesn't exist in English. I bet the Turks have a Turksih word for England/ Great Britain/ UK. (I dunno. They may not.)
woke halfwitted morons
More like misplaced anxiety over being 'correct'.
I like Hungary (apparently Magyarország - so close).
IMV it's generally polite to refer to someone in the way they want to be known.
As an aside, a growing number of women - including Mrs J - choose not to take their husband's surnames. That's their choice. But one acquaintance had a boss who, after she was married, started referring to her by her new husband's surname, when she had not taken it.
That's crassly rude.
One of my colleagues has taken his wife's surname.
Changing surnames on our corporate IT system is a total PITA for those who've done it.
Wor Lass kept her surname when we got married. Changed her title from Miss to Ms.
So he’s suggesting all the kids are running around with guns and therefore the IDF genocide is acceptable .
He can go fxck himself and his desperate attempts to justify the slaughter .
That is such a depressing tweet (and that's a hell of a field). It makes me really sad.
It was so sad seeing the little boy desperate for food in Gaza on the BBC clip . Children are crying because of the hunger . The west should be utterly ashamed .
And what is their government doing about it? Using the children as human shields.
You’ve swallowed the IDF line and are seeking to justify the mass slaughter of children. Words fail me ….
PB is nothing without culinary tips. I recall that there was a proposition that the Oz wine 19 Crimes was more or less drinkable (which I’m not sure I agree with, but anyway). My brother bought me a bottle for my birthday which I stuck away for a rainy day. Needs must and I hauled it out only to discover that it was their ‘red blend’ with a shot of espresso. Fckn hell, it was horrible. I like coffee in quite specific forms, mainly hot and in a cup, this was not one of them. However today I slow cooked a beef stew with half the bottle (nine and a half crimes?) and it’s a triumph! Might have to do another one at the weekend.
I tried one of them on the back of seeing their praises being sung here too - and boy. It wasn't great. But did boil down to an decent sauce.
So he’s suggesting all the kids are running around with guns and therefore the IDF genocide is acceptable .
He can go fxck himself and his desperate attempts to justify the slaughter .
That is such a depressing tweet (and that's a hell of a field). It makes me really sad.
It was so sad seeing the little boy desperate for food in Gaza on the BBC clip . Children are crying because of the hunger . The west should be utterly ashamed .
And what is their government doing about it? Using the children as human shields.
You’ve swallowed the IDF line and are seeking to justify the mass slaughter of children. Words fail me ….
I'm not defending the IDF. I'm criticising the Hamas terrorists who couldn't give a feck about the Palestinian people.
Unlike in this country, there are anti-Hamas demonstrations in Gaza.
Keir Starmer accused of overseeing diplomatic “embarrassment” after arriving in Albania to promote “return hubs” for refused asylum seekers only for counterpart to rule it out.
Learn something every day. I didn't know MPs were obliged to declare their religious beliefs. Do they fill out a form to record their morals and principles?
The bigger problem is no one is actually reviewing these forms and barring those with incorrect morals and principles.
I think you'll find out that filling the form in is the most important aspect. That no-one looks at it is of very little import. Can you even imagine how many meetings it took to design the form? The form, man. Think clearly!
The Tories need to do two things to survive. Get behind PR now. They have a future on 16% then. Secondly. Repudiate Brexit. Say it was the real reason for all their incompetence. And what is Starmer doing persisting with it? The madman. It was all that blithering idiot Nigel's idea. Cretin. It's incredibly cynical. But it's the Tory Party we're talking about.
Keir Starmer accused of overseeing diplomatic “embarrassment” after arriving in Albania to promote “return hubs” for refused asylum seekers only for counterpart to rule it out.
Tory incompetence? I struggle to imagine such a possibility.
PB is nothing without culinary tips. I recall that there was a proposition that the Oz wine 19 Crimes was more or less drinkable (which I’m not sure I agree with, but anyway). My brother bought me a bottle for my birthday which I stuck away for a rainy day. Needs must and I hauled it out only to discover that it was their ‘red blend’ with a shot of espresso. Fckn hell, it was horrible. I like coffee in quite specific forms, mainly hot and in a cup, this was not one of them. However today I slow cooked a beef stew with half the bottle (nine and a half crimes?) and it’s a triumph! Might have to do another one at the weekend.
I tried one of them on the back of seeing their praises being sung here too - and boy. It wasn't great. But did boil down to an decent sauce.
They are absolute urine apart from the Snoop Dog one and maybe the Chard.
PB is nothing without culinary tips. I recall that there was a proposition that the Oz wine 19 Crimes was more or less drinkable (which I’m not sure I agree with, but anyway). My brother bought me a bottle for my birthday which I stuck away for a rainy day. Needs must and I hauled it out only to discover that it was their ‘red blend’ with a shot of espresso. Fckn hell, it was horrible. I like coffee in quite specific forms, mainly hot and in a cup, this was not one of them. However today I slow cooked a beef stew with half the bottle (nine and a half crimes?) and it’s a triumph! Might have to do another one at the weekend.
I tried one of them on the back of seeing their praises being sung here too - and boy. It wasn't great. But did boil down to an decent sauce.
They are absolute urine apart from the Snoop Dog one and maybe the Chard.
My advice would be to hire a halfway competent photographer for the company headshots, or at least a Photoshop wiz to get them all the same size and looking in roughly the same direction. The photographer will be cheaper.
Perhaps because I'm from a slightly larger firm previously, which I would say was much more 'corporate' than Malthouse, but I like the rough and ready feel to the photos.
Yes, they don't follow any pattern at all, but I like it. Coming off the back of my old firm, I feel its a more personal touch and I'd like to hope the advice given is just as good as previous (certainly it is off me - you can reduce your tax bill by paying your accountant more - that sort of good advice).
And if their religious beliefs influence how they voted on this bill, so what?
Indeed, but it seems to be the case that Rantzen has an issue with it and is using it in an accusatory manner.
Pretty bigoted really. People can hardly switch off their internal moral compasses and beliefs, and something supported in part due to one belief system doesn't invalidate it. Something 'forced' on people due to religious belief would equally be forced on people if it was due to a non-religious belief.
Am i inherently more rational and objective due to lack of religious belief? Doesn't seem likely.
So, why are you inherently more rational and objective?
The AD Bill as currently drafted depends on psychiatrists on the death panels. So it is of considerable concern that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has come out against the Bill - listing 9 serious problems with it. How can it work? The vote is not now on the principle - on which the doctors and many others are neutral - but on the practicalities.
Also pretty much every suggested safeguard has been voted down or removed and some of its prominent supporters have said publicly that the coerced death of a few grannies is a price worth paying to get this law through.
We do not accept such a price for capital punishment. Why is it different here?
Those who do think wrongful deaths are a price worth paying should nominate which of their family members they would be happy to sacrifice.
Brecon is just an anglicisation of original Brychan/Brycheiniog. But Beacons was a made up name - made up for marketing the National Park, and never previously used. The peaks have always been named by their Welsh names only, eg Pen-y-fan, Fan Fawr etc. Bannau is the plural of Fan/Ban and so Bannau Brycheiniog simply means the Brecon Fans....live with it.
Wiki suggests that Beacons has been in use since the 18th century, so while th3 National Park may have adopted it, they didn’t invent it.
It's also actually a lie, as her framework was none of the things she's claiming and she made that clear when implementing it.
It's also hypocritical, because keeping her as chief of OFSTED despite her utter unfitness for the role was definitely an example of 'subordinating the interests of children to those of adults.'
What imbecile thought she deserved a peerage? Oh, sorry, it was Gove.
Learn something every day. I didn't know MPs were obliged to declare their religious beliefs. Do they fill out a form to record their morals and principles?
It's an interesting idea but how many MPs would have anything to say?
This remains an idea that is right in principle but a dreadful bill addressing the wrong problems in an unsatisfactory way.
It seems to have been a slapdash approach, and given the general support for the principle seems to be there among MPs I don't see why they couldn't start over (it wouldn't need to be from scratch) without a risk of it being dropped forever, but the impression is that that is a big worry, that opponents will gain momentum if that happens, so better this bill than no bill.
I would say better no bill than this bill, and I say that as someone not unsympathetic to the concept.
I'm against Assisted Dying, but I'm for some form of assistance in dying in some circumstances; I'm definitely against those in favour of Assisted Dying, and I'm really against those absolutely against any form of Assisted Dying.
Learn something every day. I didn't know MPs were obliged to declare their religious beliefs. Do they fill out a form to record their morals and principles?
It's an interesting idea but how many MPs would have anything to say?
This remains an idea that is right in principle but a dreadful bill addressing the wrong problems in an unsatisfactory way.
It seems to have been a slapdash approach, and given the general support for the principle seems to be there among MPs I don't see why they couldn't start over (it wouldn't need to be from scratch) without a risk of it being dropped forever, but the impression is that that is a big worry, that opponents will gain momentum if that happens, so better this bill than no bill.
I would say better no bill than this bill, and I say that as someone not unsympathetic to the concept.
I'm against Assisted Dying, but I'm for some form of assistance in dying in some circumstances; I'm definitely against those in favour of Assisted Dying, and I'm really against those absolutely against any form of Assisted Dying.
Clear?
When all those who have come in are out, the side that is out will come in and the side that has been in will go out.
The AD Bill as currently drafted depends on psychiatrists on the death panels. So it is of considerable concern that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has come out against the Bill - listing 9 serious problems with it. How can it work? The vote is not now on the principle - on which the doctors and many others are neutral - but on the practicalities.
Also pretty much every suggested safeguard has been voted down or removed and some of its prominent supporters have said publicly that the coerced death of a few grannies is a price worth paying to get this law through.
We do not accept such a price for capital punishment. Why is it different here?
Those who do think wrongful deaths are a price worth paying should nominate which of their family members they would be happy to sacrifice.
Assisted dying is currently available to anyone who has the resources to fly to Switzerland to pay Dignitas.
So, why should poor people be denied the same rights as the better off?
Either assisted dying is wrong, and those people who aid and abet relatives heading off to Switzerland should be prosecuted.
Or it is not, and therefore we should have the same rules the Swiss do.
Or - fuck it - let's keep it simple (and probably much cheaper), and just have a fund that people can use to head off to Switzerland. Then we can keep our hands clean.
Learn something every day. I didn't know MPs were obliged to declare their religious beliefs. Do they fill out a form to record their morals and principles?
It's an interesting idea but how many MPs would have anything to say?
This remains an idea that is right in principle but a dreadful bill addressing the wrong problems in an unsatisfactory way.
It seems to have been a slapdash approach, and given the general support for the principle seems to be there among MPs I don't see why they couldn't start over (it wouldn't need to be from scratch) without a risk of it being dropped forever, but the impression is that that is a big worry, that opponents will gain momentum if that happens, so better this bill than no bill.
I would say better no bill than this bill, and I say that as someone not unsympathetic to the concept.
Perhaps, but I don't MPs generally think that way. These are the same people who always think a new rule/law is better than utilising rules and laws that already exist, or creating new bodies to do things counts as doing something.
At least part of Trump’s argument appeared to find purchase on the conservative court: That lower court judges were too frequently shutting down the president’s policies with too little review.
But that left several of the conservatives questioning what to do, in the meantime, with Trump’s policy, which appears to conflict directly with the text of the 14th Amendment.
That's a complicated way of describing their real challenge - that they don't want to say no to a Republican president, but the direct text apparently means they have little option, even as creative as they can be.
And if their religious beliefs influence how they voted on this bill, so what?
Indeed, but it seems to be the case that Rantzen has an issue with it and is using it in an accusatory manner.
Pretty bigoted really. People can hardly switch off their internal moral compasses and beliefs, and something supported in part due to one belief system doesn't invalidate it. Something 'forced' on people due to religious belief would equally be forced on people if it was due to a non-religious belief.
Am i inherently more rational and objective due to lack of religious belief? Doesn't seem likely.
So, why are you inherently more rational and objective?
The AD Bill as currently drafted depends on psychiatrists on the death panels. So it is of considerable concern that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has come out against the Bill - listing 9 serious problems with it. How can it work? The vote is not now on the principle - on which the doctors and many others are neutral - but on the practicalities.
Also pretty much every suggested safeguard has been voted down or removed and some of its prominent supporters have said publicly that the coerced death of a few grannies is a price worth paying to get this law through.
We do not accept such a price for capital punishment. Why is it different here?
Those who do think wrongful deaths are a price worth paying should nominate which of their family members they would be happy to sacrifice.
The fear is that it will be family members doing the coercing. Who else has an incentive?
At least part of Trump’s argument appeared to find purchase on the conservative court: That lower court judges were too frequently shutting down the president’s policies with too little review.
But that left several of the conservatives questioning what to do, in the meantime, with Trump’s policy, which appears to conflict directly with the text of the 14th Amendment.
That's a complicated way of describing their real challenge - that they don't want to say no to a Republican president, but the direct text apparently means they have little option, even as creative as they can be.
Traditionally, the consevatives aren't creative, because they are strict constructionists, who don't believe the constitution is a living document, right? Or maybe that's only some of them.
The AD Bill as currently drafted depends on psychiatrists on the death panels. So it is of considerable concern that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has come out against the Bill - listing 9 serious problems with it. How can it work? The vote is not now on the principle - on which the doctors and many others are neutral - but on the practicalities.
Also pretty much every suggested safeguard has been voted down or removed and some of its prominent supporters have said publicly that the coerced death of a few grannies is a price worth paying to get this law through.
We do not accept such a price for capital punishment. Why is it different here?
Those who do think wrongful deaths are a price worth paying should nominate which of their family members they would be happy to sacrifice.
The fear is that it will be family members doing the coercing. Who else has an incentive?
The AD Bill as currently drafted depends on psychiatrists on the death panels. So it is of considerable concern that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has come out against the Bill - listing 9 serious problems with it. How can it work? The vote is not now on the principle - on which the doctors and many others are neutral - but on the practicalities.
Also pretty much every suggested safeguard has been voted down or removed and some of its prominent supporters have said publicly that the coerced death of a few grannies is a price worth paying to get this law through.
We do not accept such a price for capital punishment. Why is it different here?
Those who do think wrongful deaths are a price worth paying should nominate which of their family members they would be happy to sacrifice.
Assisted dying is currently available to anyone who has the resources to fly to Switzerland to pay Dignitas.
So, why should poor people be denied the same rights as the better off?
Either assisted dying is wrong, and those people who aid and abet relatives heading off to Switzerland should be prosecuted.
Or it is not, and therefore we should have the same rules the Swiss do.
Or - fuck it - let's keep it simple (and probably much cheaper), and just have a fund that people can use to head off to Switzerland. Then we can keep our hands clean.
There are two sets he people deeply committed on either side of this debate. (And some not committed either way.)
But those committed are never going to be persuaded against their very strong beliefs.
I'm not sure how that is resolved, but your idea isn't a bad one.
I cant get excited about Turkey/Turkiye which is subtle pronunciation difference. But we should respect Sri Lanka, Mynamar, Cymru...
That's another one. I can just about accept Eyri, though I'm not happy about it. There are at least Welsh speakers there. But renaming the Brecon Beacons was done purely to annoy the English. Brecon Beacons sounded quite nice - I quite fancied a weekend there. I'm not bothering with it under a name I can't pronounce chosen purely to annoy me.
It is and always will be the Brecon Beacons now matter how much the Welsh language fanatics rant. I have never heard anyone use the Welsh name, I grew up not 10 miles from there and I have no idea how to pronounce it.
The AD Bill as currently drafted depends on psychiatrists on the death panels. So it is of considerable concern that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has come out against the Bill - listing 9 serious problems with it. How can it work? The vote is not now on the principle - on which the doctors and many others are neutral - but on the practicalities.
Also pretty much every suggested safeguard has been voted down or removed and some of its prominent supporters have said publicly that the coerced death of a few grannies is a price worth paying to get this law through.
We do not accept such a price for capital punishment. Why is it different here?
Those who do think wrongful deaths are a price worth paying should nominate which of their family members they would be happy to sacrifice.
The fear is that it will be family members doing the coercing. Who else has an incentive?
PB is nothing without culinary tips. I recall that there was a proposition that the Oz wine 19 Crimes was more or less drinkable (which I’m not sure I agree with, but anyway). My brother bought me a bottle for my birthday which I stuck away for a rainy day. Needs must and I hauled it out only to discover that it was their ‘red blend’ with a shot of espresso. Fckn hell, it was horrible. I like coffee in quite specific forms, mainly hot and in a cup, this was not one of them. However today I slow cooked a beef stew with half the bottle (nine and a half crimes?) and it’s a triumph! Might have to do another one at the weekend.
Unless it's corked there isn't a red wine that won't improve a beef stew tbf.
The AD Bill as currently drafted depends on psychiatrists on the death panels. So it is of considerable concern that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has come out against the Bill - listing 9 serious problems with it. How can it work? The vote is not now on the principle - on which the doctors and many others are neutral - but on the practicalities.
Also pretty much every suggested safeguard has been voted down or removed and some of its prominent supporters have said publicly that the coerced death of a few grannies is a price worth paying to get this law through.
We do not accept such a price for capital punishment. Why is it different here?
Those who do think wrongful deaths are a price worth paying should nominate which of their family members they would be happy to sacrifice.
Assisted dying is currently available to anyone who has the resources to fly to Switzerland to pay Dignitas.
So, why should poor people be denied the same rights as the better off?
Either assisted dying is wrong, and those people who aid and abet relatives heading off to Switzerland should be prosecuted.
Or it is not, and therefore we should have the same rules the Swiss do.
Or - fuck it - let's keep it simple (and probably much cheaper), and just have a fund that people can use to head off to Switzerland. Then we can keep our hands clean.
Lady on the radio last night who is going to choose Dignitas. The big negatives for her with that were because it is illegal to assist her none of her family and friends can safely visit her there, and she will have to end her life earlier than she would like as she has to be able to independently travel to get to Switzerland. If she could choose the same option here, or someone could help her she would get an extra couple of months life, and more time with family and friends than alone.
Doesn’t include the trains, the Euston bit, or any of the other bits to Manchester, Crewe or Leeds, which it was once said would cost well below £100bn put together.
For that money, we could build a reusable heavy lift rocket and have our own moon landings. Probably 5x over, if we don’t let BAe near it.
Before you can say that, we need SpaceX to build a working reusable heavy lift rocket and for the US to make their own moon landings. Because SpaceX have not yet made a reusable heavy lift rocket, and the US moon landings seem to be further away than ever. And until it's done, we cannot know the costs.
Given the efforts by various companies, a £20bn is high end for a reusable *super* heavy booster (Starship/New Armstrong)
A merely heavy booster (Delta IV heavy/F9H) would be much less.
The architecture to get from that to the moon is well known and discussed- it didn't meet political considerations. See the Obama plan to cancel SLS.
My point is we can't tell, as it's not been done yet. BO has a glacial pace atm (sadly...), whilst Musky Baby is already talking about Starship V3, when V1 and V2 failed - and V3 uses many future potential updates just to try to get the capacity that was promised for V1.
The current architecture to get to the Moon is imperiled by the potential cancellation of SLS. Starting again afresh will be costly and, more importantly, time-consuming.
My friends in the aerospace/space industry here in SoCal are sounding increasing downbeat about Starship - like it'll never work because the weight reductions they need to achieve compromise structural integrity too much negative. And these are people who absolutely love SpaceX.
And if their religious beliefs influence how they voted on this bill, so what?
Indeed, but it seems to be the case that Rantzen has an issue with it and is using it in an accusatory manner.
Pretty bigoted really. People can hardly switch off their internal moral compasses and beliefs, and something supported in part due to one belief system doesn't invalidate it. Something 'forced' on people due to religious belief would equally be forced on people if it was due to a non-religious belief.
Am i inherently more rational and objective due to lack of religious belief? Doesn't seem likely.
So, why are you inherently more rational and objective?
The AD Bill as currently drafted depends on psychiatrists on the death panels. So it is of considerable concern that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has come out against the Bill - listing 9 serious problems with it. How can it work? The vote is not now on the principle - on which the doctors and many others are neutral - but on the practicalities.
Also pretty much every suggested safeguard has been voted down or removed and some of its prominent supporters have said publicly that the coerced death of a few grannies is a price worth paying to get this law through.
We do not accept such a price for capital punishment. Why is it different here?
Those who do think wrongful deaths are a price worth paying should nominate which of their family members they would be happy to sacrifice.
The fear is that it will be family members doing the coercing. Who else has an incentive?
Is the entire administration bought and paid for by one or other Middle East regime ?
Up until last November, Kash Patel was a paid consultant for Qatar. But he and the FBI still refuse to say what he did for this Arab monarchy or how much he was paid. https://x.com/DavidCornDC/status/1922724801065394401
Doesn’t include the trains, the Euston bit, or any of the other bits to Manchester, Crewe or Leeds, which it was once said would cost well below £100bn put together.
For that money, we could build a reusable heavy lift rocket and have our own moon landings. Probably 5x over, if we don’t let BAe near it.
Before you can say that, we need SpaceX to build a working reusable heavy lift rocket and for the US to make their own moon landings. Because SpaceX have not yet made a reusable heavy lift rocket, and the US moon landings seem to be further away than ever. And until it's done, we cannot know the costs.
Given the efforts by various companies, a £20bn is high end for a reusable *super* heavy booster (Starship/New Armstrong)
A merely heavy booster (Delta IV heavy/F9H) would be much less.
The architecture to get from that to the moon is well known and discussed- it didn't meet political considerations. See the Obama plan to cancel SLS.
My point is we can't tell, as it's not been done yet. BO has a glacial pace atm (sadly...), whilst Musky Baby is already talking about Starship V3, when V1 and V2 failed - and V3 uses many future potential updates just to try to get the capacity that was promised for V1.
The current architecture to get to the Moon is imperiled by the potential cancellation of SLS. Starting again afresh will be costly and, more importantly, time-consuming.
My friends in the aerospace/space industry here in SoCal are sounding increasing downbeat about Starship - like it'll never work because the weight reductions they need to achieve compromise structural integrity too much negative. And these are people who absolutely love SpaceX.
That's interesting from an engineering perspective, but I think it gets the fundamental flaw wrong:
Starship is failing because Musk has succeeded so many times, he thinks himself infallible.
And therefore he's doubling down, and tripling down.
But -yes- it is entirely likely that Starship will be a colossal failure. Fortunately for SpaceX, Falcon is by far the most cost efficient rocket on the planet. And fortunately too, Starlink is a big success.
Doesn’t include the trains, the Euston bit, or any of the other bits to Manchester, Crewe or Leeds, which it was once said would cost well below £100bn put together.
For that money, we could build a reusable heavy lift rocket and have our own moon landings. Probably 5x over, if we don’t let BAe near it.
Before you can say that, we need SpaceX to build a working reusable heavy lift rocket and for the US to make their own moon landings. Because SpaceX have not yet made a reusable heavy lift rocket, and the US moon landings seem to be further away than ever. And until it's done, we cannot know the costs.
Given the efforts by various companies, a £20bn is high end for a reusable *super* heavy booster (Starship/New Armstrong)
A merely heavy booster (Delta IV heavy/F9H) would be much less.
The architecture to get from that to the moon is well known and discussed- it didn't meet political considerations. See the Obama plan to cancel SLS.
My point is we can't tell, as it's not been done yet. BO has a glacial pace atm (sadly...), whilst Musky Baby is already talking about Starship V3, when V1 and V2 failed - and V3 uses many future potential updates just to try to get the capacity that was promised for V1.
The current architecture to get to the Moon is imperiled by the potential cancellation of SLS. Starting again afresh will be costly and, more importantly, time-consuming.
My friends in the aerospace/space industry here in SoCal are sounding increasing downbeat about Starship - like it'll never work because the weight reductions they need to achieve compromise structural integrity too much negative. And these are people who absolutely love SpaceX.
That's interesting from an engineering perspective, but I think it gets the fundamental flaw wrong:
Starship is failing because Musk has succeeded so many times, he thinks himself infallible.
And therefore he's doubling down, and tripling down.
But -yes- it is entirely likely that Starship will be a colossal failure. Fortunately for SpaceX, Falcon is by far the most cost efficient rocket on the planet. And fortunately too, Starlink is a big success.
If I may disagree....starlink has been a finacial success but likely to be an ecological disaster in the making.
So he’s suggesting all the kids are running around with guns and therefore the IDF genocide is acceptable .
He can go fxck himself and his desperate attempts to justify the slaughter .
That is such a depressing tweet (and that's a hell of a field). It makes me really sad.
It was so sad seeing the little boy desperate for food in Gaza on the BBC clip . Children are crying because of the hunger . The west should be utterly ashamed .
And what is their government doing about it? Using the children as human shields.
You’ve swallowed the IDF line and are seeking to justify the mass slaughter of children. Words fail me ….
The AD Bill as currently drafted depends on psychiatrists on the death panels. So it is of considerable concern that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has come out against the Bill - listing 9 serious problems with it. How can it work? The vote is not now on the principle - on which the doctors and many others are neutral - but on the practicalities.
Also pretty much every suggested safeguard has been voted down or removed and some of its prominent supporters have said publicly that the coerced death of a few grannies is a price worth paying to get this law through.
We do not accept such a price for capital punishment. Why is it different here?
Those who do think wrongful deaths are a price worth paying should nominate which of their family members they would be happy to sacrifice.
Assisted dying is currently available to anyone who has the resources to fly to Switzerland to pay Dignitas.
So, why should poor people be denied the same rights as the better off?
Either assisted dying is wrong, and those people who aid and abet relatives heading off to Switzerland should be prosecuted.
Or it is not, and therefore we should have the same rules the Swiss do.
Or - fuck it - let's keep it simple (and probably much cheaper), and just have a fund that people can use to head off to Switzerland. Then we can keep our hands clean.
Lady on the radio last night who is going to choose Dignitas. The big negatives for her with that were because it is illegal to assist her none of her family and friends can safely visit her there, and she will have to end her life earlier than she would like as she has to be able to independently travel to get to Switzerland. If she could choose the same option here, or someone could help her she would get an extra couple of months life, and more time with family and friends than alone.
Terry Pratchett was never prosecuted for assisting Peter Smedley, and he did a whole TV show about Dignitas, so I'm not entirely sure this lady's relatives concerns are valid.
Has anyone been prosecuted for visiting a relative in Switzerland who was on their way to Dignitas?
Doesn’t include the trains, the Euston bit, or any of the other bits to Manchester, Crewe or Leeds, which it was once said would cost well below £100bn put together.
For that money, we could build a reusable heavy lift rocket and have our own moon landings. Probably 5x over, if we don’t let BAe near it.
Before you can say that, we need SpaceX to build a working reusable heavy lift rocket and for the US to make their own moon landings. Because SpaceX have not yet made a reusable heavy lift rocket, and the US moon landings seem to be further away than ever. And until it's done, we cannot know the costs.
Given the efforts by various companies, a £20bn is high end for a reusable *super* heavy booster (Starship/New Armstrong)
A merely heavy booster (Delta IV heavy/F9H) would be much less.
The architecture to get from that to the moon is well known and discussed- it didn't meet political considerations. See the Obama plan to cancel SLS.
My point is we can't tell, as it's not been done yet. BO has a glacial pace atm (sadly...), whilst Musky Baby is already talking about Starship V3, when V1 and V2 failed - and V3 uses many future potential updates just to try to get the capacity that was promised for V1.
The current architecture to get to the Moon is imperiled by the potential cancellation of SLS. Starting again afresh will be costly and, more importantly, time-consuming.
My friends in the aerospace/space industry here in SoCal are sounding increasing downbeat about Starship - like it'll never work because the weight reductions they need to achieve compromise structural integrity too much negative. And these are people who absolutely love SpaceX.
That's interesting from an engineering perspective, but I think it gets the fundamental flaw wrong:
Starship is failing because Musk has succeeded so many times, he thinks himself infallible.
And therefore he's doubling down, and tripling down.
But -yes- it is entirely likely that Starship will be a colossal failure. Fortunately for SpaceX, Falcon is by far the most cost efficient rocket on the planet. And fortunately too, Starlink is a big success.
If I may disagree....starlink has been a finacial success but likely to be an ecological disaster in the making.
I'm only talking financially: it's a massive cash generator for SpaceX.
The AD Bill as currently drafted depends on psychiatrists on the death panels. So it is of considerable concern that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has come out against the Bill - listing 9 serious problems with it. How can it work? The vote is not now on the principle - on which the doctors and many others are neutral - but on the practicalities.
Also pretty much every suggested safeguard has been voted down or removed and some of its prominent supporters have said publicly that the coerced death of a few grannies is a price worth paying to get this law through.
We do not accept such a price for capital punishment. Why is it different here?
Those who do think wrongful deaths are a price worth paying should nominate which of their family members they would be happy to sacrifice.
Assisted dying is currently available to anyone who has the resources to fly to Switzerland to pay Dignitas.
So, why should poor people be denied the same rights as the better off?
Either assisted dying is wrong, and those people who aid and abet relatives heading off to Switzerland should be prosecuted.
Or it is not, and therefore we should have the same rules the Swiss do.
Or - fuck it - let's keep it simple (and probably much cheaper), and just have a fund that people can use to head off to Switzerland. Then we can keep our hands clean.
Lady on the radio last night who is going to choose Dignitas. The big negatives for her with that were because it is illegal to assist her none of her family and friends can safely visit her there, and she will have to end her life earlier than she would like as she has to be able to independently travel to get to Switzerland. If she could choose the same option here, or someone could help her she would get an extra couple of months life, and more time with family and friends than alone.
Terry Pratchett was never prosecuted for assisting Peter Smedley, and he did a whole TV show about Dignitas, so I'm not entirely sure this lady's relatives concerns are valid.
Has anyone been prosecuted for visiting a relative in Switzerland who was on their way to Dignitas?
Google suggests not unusual they get arrested and a long wait before no prosecution......British decisiveness at its finest.
The AD Bill as currently drafted depends on psychiatrists on the death panels. So it is of considerable concern that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has come out against the Bill - listing 9 serious problems with it. How can it work? The vote is not now on the principle - on which the doctors and many others are neutral - but on the practicalities.
Also pretty much every suggested safeguard has been voted down or removed and some of its prominent supporters have said publicly that the coerced death of a few grannies is a price worth paying to get this law through.
We do not accept such a price for capital punishment. Why is it different here?
Those who do think wrongful deaths are a price worth paying should nominate which of their family members they would be happy to sacrifice.
Assisted dying is currently available to anyone who has the resources to fly to Switzerland to pay Dignitas.
So, why should poor people be denied the same rights as the better off?
Either assisted dying is wrong, and those people who aid and abet relatives heading off to Switzerland should be prosecuted.
Or it is not, and therefore we should have the same rules the Swiss do.
Or - fuck it - let's keep it simple (and probably much cheaper), and just have a fund that people can use to head off to Switzerland. Then we can keep our hands clean.
Lady on the radio last night who is going to choose Dignitas. The big negatives for her with that were because it is illegal to assist her none of her family and friends can safely visit her there, and she will have to end her life earlier than she would like as she has to be able to independently travel to get to Switzerland. If she could choose the same option here, or someone could help her she would get an extra couple of months life, and more time with family and friends than alone.
Terry Pratchett was never prosecuted for assisting Peter Smedley, and he did a whole TV show about Dignitas, so I'm not entirely sure this lady's relatives concerns are valid.
Has anyone been prosecuted for visiting a relative in Switzerland who was on their way to Dignitas?
Probably helps to be famous, but it would be interesting to know how many times it has happened.
Doesn’t include the trains, the Euston bit, or any of the other bits to Manchester, Crewe or Leeds, which it was once said would cost well below £100bn put together.
For that money, we could build a reusable heavy lift rocket and have our own moon landings. Probably 5x over, if we don’t let BAe near it.
Before you can say that, we need SpaceX to build a working reusable heavy lift rocket and for the US to make their own moon landings. Because SpaceX have not yet made a reusable heavy lift rocket, and the US moon landings seem to be further away than ever. And until it's done, we cannot know the costs.
Given the efforts by various companies, a £20bn is high end for a reusable *super* heavy booster (Starship/New Armstrong)
A merely heavy booster (Delta IV heavy/F9H) would be much less.
The architecture to get from that to the moon is well known and discussed- it didn't meet political considerations. See the Obama plan to cancel SLS.
My point is we can't tell, as it's not been done yet. BO has a glacial pace atm (sadly...), whilst Musky Baby is already talking about Starship V3, when V1 and V2 failed - and V3 uses many future potential updates just to try to get the capacity that was promised for V1.
The current architecture to get to the Moon is imperiled by the potential cancellation of SLS. Starting again afresh will be costly and, more importantly, time-consuming.
My friends in the aerospace/space industry here in SoCal are sounding increasing downbeat about Starship - like it'll never work because the weight reductions they need to achieve compromise structural integrity too much negative. And these are people who absolutely love SpaceX.
That's interesting from an engineering perspective, but I think it gets the fundamental flaw wrong:
Starship is failing because Musk has succeeded so many times, he thinks himself infallible.
And therefore he's doubling down, and tripling down.
But -yes- it is entirely likely that Starship will be a colossal failure. Fortunately for SpaceX, Falcon is by far the most cost efficient rocket on the planet. And fortunately too, Starlink is a big success.
If I may disagree....starlink has been a finacial success but likely to be an ecological disaster in the making.
I'm only talking financially: it's a massive cash generator for SpaceX.
Just pointing out financial isn't the only measure, leo satellites degrade their orbits quickly not just starlink but all similar and will therefore be spreading lots of shit in the upper atmosphere...from memory a starling satellite has an expected life expectancy of about 5 years
See now you say financially great and for example it makes musks company a billion a year....if it hastens climate change by 10 years however it may be a success for musk but not the rest of us
Doesn’t include the trains, the Euston bit, or any of the other bits to Manchester, Crewe or Leeds, which it was once said would cost well below £100bn put together.
For that money, we could build a reusable heavy lift rocket and have our own moon landings. Probably 5x over, if we don’t let BAe near it.
Before you can say that, we need SpaceX to build a working reusable heavy lift rocket and for the US to make their own moon landings. Because SpaceX have not yet made a reusable heavy lift rocket, and the US moon landings seem to be further away than ever. And until it's done, we cannot know the costs.
Given the efforts by various companies, a £20bn is high end for a reusable *super* heavy booster (Starship/New Armstrong)
A merely heavy booster (Delta IV heavy/F9H) would be much less.
The architecture to get from that to the moon is well known and discussed- it didn't meet political considerations. See the Obama plan to cancel SLS.
My point is we can't tell, as it's not been done yet. BO has a glacial pace atm (sadly...), whilst Musky Baby is already talking about Starship V3, when V1 and V2 failed - and V3 uses many future potential updates just to try to get the capacity that was promised for V1.
The current architecture to get to the Moon is imperiled by the potential cancellation of SLS. Starting again afresh will be costly and, more importantly, time-consuming.
My friends in the aerospace/space industry here in SoCal are sounding increasing downbeat about Starship - like it'll never work because the weight reductions they need to achieve compromise structural integrity too much negative. And these are people who absolutely love SpaceX.
Indeed: the kind of behaviour that makes one extremely irritated with the British police. There is no intention to prosecute, only to harrass.
Yup in my experience from the police its more harassment than enforcement, I actually hit a record one year of being arrested 23 times and never charged once. By arrested I mean put in a car, being taken to a station etc...not just questioned
Indeed: the kind of behaviour that makes one extremely irritated with the British police. There is no intention to prosecute, only to harrass.
Not sure it is entirely down to the police, the law has indeed been broken but it is not in the public interest to prosecute. That is presumably a CPS decision not a police one? I'd suggest the politicians have a duty to change the law given it is not going to be a one-off case but repeated at least a few times a year and cause distress to all involved alongside a waste of police and justice resources.
Doesn’t include the trains, the Euston bit, or any of the other bits to Manchester, Crewe or Leeds, which it was once said would cost well below £100bn put together.
For that money, we could build a reusable heavy lift rocket and have our own moon landings. Probably 5x over, if we don’t let BAe near it.
Before you can say that, we need SpaceX to build a working reusable heavy lift rocket and for the US to make their own moon landings. Because SpaceX have not yet made a reusable heavy lift rocket, and the US moon landings seem to be further away than ever. And until it's done, we cannot know the costs.
Given the efforts by various companies, a £20bn is high end for a reusable *super* heavy booster (Starship/New Armstrong)
A merely heavy booster (Delta IV heavy/F9H) would be much less.
The architecture to get from that to the moon is well known and discussed- it didn't meet political considerations. See the Obama plan to cancel SLS.
My point is we can't tell, as it's not been done yet. BO has a glacial pace atm (sadly...), whilst Musky Baby is already talking about Starship V3, when V1 and V2 failed - and V3 uses many future potential updates just to try to get the capacity that was promised for V1.
The current architecture to get to the Moon is imperiled by the potential cancellation of SLS. Starting again afresh will be costly and, more importantly, time-consuming.
My friends in the aerospace/space industry here in SoCal are sounding increasing downbeat about Starship - like it'll never work because the weight reductions they need to achieve compromise structural integrity too much negative. And these are people who absolutely love SpaceX.
That's interesting from an engineering perspective, but I think it gets the fundamental flaw wrong:
Starship is failing because Musk has succeeded so many times, he thinks himself infallible.
And therefore he's doubling down, and tripling down.
But -yes- it is entirely likely that Starship will be a colossal failure. Fortunately for SpaceX, Falcon is by far the most cost efficient rocket on the planet. And fortunately too, Starlink is a big success.
If so, it will be interesting to watch how soon (or how belatedly) Musk scraps it.
The remarkable control systems, and the rapid development of rocket motor technology will probably stand them in good stead for whatever succeeds it.
Doesn’t include the trains, the Euston bit, or any of the other bits to Manchester, Crewe or Leeds, which it was once said would cost well below £100bn put together.
For that money, we could build a reusable heavy lift rocket and have our own moon landings. Probably 5x over, if we don’t let BAe near it.
Before you can say that, we need SpaceX to build a working reusable heavy lift rocket and for the US to make their own moon landings. Because SpaceX have not yet made a reusable heavy lift rocket, and the US moon landings seem to be further away than ever. And until it's done, we cannot know the costs.
Given the efforts by various companies, a £20bn is high end for a reusable *super* heavy booster (Starship/New Armstrong)
A merely heavy booster (Delta IV heavy/F9H) would be much less.
The architecture to get from that to the moon is well known and discussed- it didn't meet political considerations. See the Obama plan to cancel SLS.
My point is we can't tell, as it's not been done yet. BO has a glacial pace atm (sadly...), whilst Musky Baby is already talking about Starship V3, when V1 and V2 failed - and V3 uses many future potential updates just to try to get the capacity that was promised for V1.
The current architecture to get to the Moon is imperiled by the potential cancellation of SLS. Starting again afresh will be costly and, more importantly, time-consuming.
My friends in the aerospace/space industry here in SoCal are sounding increasing downbeat about Starship - like it'll never work because the weight reductions they need to achieve compromise structural integrity too much negative. And these are people who absolutely love SpaceX.
That's interesting from an engineering perspective, but I think it gets the fundamental flaw wrong:
Starship is failing because Musk has succeeded so many times, he thinks himself infallible.
And therefore he's doubling down, and tripling down.
But -yes- it is entirely likely that Starship will be a colossal failure. Fortunately for SpaceX, Falcon is by far the most cost efficient rocket on the planet. And fortunately too, Starlink is a big success.
If I may disagree....starlink has been a finacial success but likely to be an ecological disaster in the making.
I'm only talking financially: it's a massive cash generator for SpaceX.
Just pointing out financial isn't the only measure, leo satellites degrade their orbits quickly not just starlink but all similar and will therefore be spreading lots of shit in the upper atmosphere...from memory a starling satellite has an expected life expectancy of about 5 years
See now you say financially great and for example it makes musks company a billion a year....if it hastens climate change by 10 years however it may be a success for musk but not the rest of us
So he’s suggesting all the kids are running around with guns and therefore the IDF genocide is acceptable .
He can go fxck himself and his desperate attempts to justify the slaughter .
That is such a depressing tweet (and that's a hell of a field). It makes me really sad.
It was so sad seeing the little boy desperate for food in Gaza on the BBC clip . Children are crying because of the hunger . The west should be utterly ashamed .
Why "the West"? We don't run the world any more. China has the world's biggest economy by PPP. One of Israel's biggest allies is Russia. Israel has other major allies in, eg, Turkey (when it suits them)
This idea of the Big Bad Evil West needs to be killed off
Indeed: the kind of behaviour that makes one extremely irritated with the British police. There is no intention to prosecute, only to harrass.
Not sure it is entirely down to the police, the law has indeed been broken but it is not in the public interest to prosecute. That is presumably a CPS decision not a police one? I'd suggest the politicians have a duty to change the law given it is not going to be a one-off case but repeated at least a few times a year and cause distress to all involved alongside a waste of police and justice resources.
Wow you think changing the law will stop them, I once got arrested because I had walked down the straight road to the 24 hour garage at 9pm and was walking back with said 4 pint milk in my hand. Apparently someone with my description had robbed a garage 10 miles away and bundled in a police car and spent a night in the cells....they didn't even refrigerate the milk
Indeed: the kind of behaviour that makes one extremely irritated with the British police. There is no intention to prosecute, only to harrass.
Not sure it is entirely down to the police, the law has indeed been broken but it is not in the public interest to prosecute. That is presumably a CPS decision not a police one? I'd suggest the politicians have a duty to change the law given it is not going to be a one-off case but repeated at least a few times a year and cause distress to all involved alongside a waste of police and justice resources.
Wow you think changing the law will stop them, I once got arrested because I had walked down the straight road to the 24 hour garage at 9pm and was walking back with said 4 pint milk in my hand. Apparently someone with my description had robbed a garage 10 miles away and bundled in a police car and spent a night in the cells....they didn't even refrigerate the milk
I can see why not just the milk would end up sour that night.
Extraordinary this has to be said. By a justice he appointed.
Justice Jackson pushes back on Team Trump: English common law isn't relevant because the U.S. doesn't have a king.
"The fact that courts back in the English Chancery couldn't enjoin the king, I think is not analogous or indicative of our system. The executive is supposed to be bound by the law, and the court has the power to say what the law is." https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1923043248253121018
Comments
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=16&LAB=21&LIB=14&Reform=33&Green=11&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/15/politics/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-nationwide-injunctions-executive-order
"Sweden has more emigrants than immigrants for the first time in half a century"
More to the point, how do you distinguish a religious human community from any other human community based around belief, a set of principles, a praxis, or a rule of life?
A serial fare dodger, and aspiring rapper, who owes over £30,000, was caught travelling without a ticket on his way to court 😂😂😂😂
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-telegraph/20250504/281736980328993?srsltid=AfmBOooaKj22ZgmDiL6CtJBn0MX9gMeGWSgman-CJNPtVakkgqRqXuRY
Changing surnames on our corporate IT system is a total PITA for those who've done it.
Wor Lass kept her surname when we got married. Changed her title from Miss to Ms.
Unlike in this country, there are anti-Hamas demonstrations in Gaza.
Ahmed has been held up somewhere between Afghanistan and here.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1923036141806084480
Keir Starmer accused of overseeing diplomatic “embarrassment” after arriving in Albania to promote “return hubs” for refused asylum seekers only for counterpart to rule it out.
They'll get all they wanted, and more.
Get behind PR now. They have a future on 16% then.
Secondly. Repudiate Brexit. Say it was the real reason for all their incompetence. And what is Starmer doing persisting with it? The madman.
It was all that blithering idiot Nigel's idea. Cretin.
It's incredibly cynical. But it's the Tory Party we're talking about.
I struggle to imagine such a possibility.
Yes, they don't follow any pattern at all, but I like it. Coming off the back of my old firm, I feel its a more personal touch and I'd like to hope the advice given is just as good as previous (certainly it is off me - you can reduce your tax bill by paying your accountant more - that sort of good advice).
Also pretty much every suggested safeguard has been voted down or removed and some of its prominent supporters have said publicly that the coerced death of a few grannies is a price worth paying to get this law through.
We do not accept such a price for capital punishment. Why is it different here?
Those who do think wrongful deaths are a price worth paying should nominate which of their family members they would be happy to sacrifice.
This is just embarrassingly tin-eared.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/controversial-ex-ofsted-chief-warns-against-vilifying-public-bodies/ar-AA1EQJu8
It's also actually a lie, as her framework was none of the things she's claiming and she made that clear when implementing it.
It's also hypocritical, because keeping her as chief of OFSTED despite her utter unfitness for the role was definitely an example of 'subordinating the interests of children to those of adults.'
What imbecile thought she deserved a peerage? Oh, sorry, it was Gove.
Clear?
So, why should poor people be denied the same rights as the better off?
Either assisted dying is wrong, and those people who aid and abet relatives heading off to Switzerland should be prosecuted.
Or it is not, and therefore we should have the same rules the Swiss do.
Or - fuck it - let's keep it simple (and probably much cheaper), and just have a fund that people can use to head off to Switzerland. Then we can keep our hands clean.
But that left several of the conservatives questioning what to do, in the meantime, with Trump’s policy, which appears to conflict directly with the text of the 14th Amendment.
That's a complicated way of describing their real challenge - that they don't want to say no to a Republican president, but the direct text apparently means they have little option, even as creative as they can be.
(And some not committed either way.)
But those committed are never going to be persuaded against their very strong beliefs.
I'm not sure how that is resolved, but your idea isn't a bad one.
Corbyn might have managed it.
Up until last November, Kash Patel was a paid consultant for Qatar. But he and the FBI still refuse to say what he did for this Arab monarchy or how much he was paid.
https://x.com/DavidCornDC/status/1922724801065394401
Starship is failing because Musk has succeeded so many times, he thinks himself infallible.
And therefore he's doubling down, and tripling down.
But -yes- it is entirely likely that Starship will be a colossal failure. Fortunately for SpaceX, Falcon is by far the most cost efficient rocket on the planet. And fortunately too, Starlink is a big success.
https://x.com/mrharrycole/status/1923115936455737517
You have to get to par 11 in the Lammy taxi story before you get to the taxi driver admitting he tried to shake down the Foreign Secretary…
https://x.com/mikeysmith/status/1923038016152494416
Has anyone been prosecuted for visiting a relative in Switzerland who was on their way to Dignitas?
For most being arrested is a harrowing experience if its their first time
Analysis: Clean energy just put China’s CO2 emissions into reverse for first time
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-just-put-chinas-co2-emissions-into-reverse-for-first-time/
Indeed: the kind of behaviour that makes one extremely irritated with the British police. There is no intention to prosecute, only to harrass.
See now you say financially great and for example it makes musks company a billion a year....if it hastens climate change by 10 years however it may be a success for musk but not the rest of us
The remarkable control systems, and the rapid development of rocket motor technology will probably stand them in good stead for whatever succeeds it.
After all, the first editor of Murdoch's Sun was Larry Lamb, and nothing is a coincidence.
Please show your workings.
This idea of the Big Bad Evil West needs to be killed off
By a justice he appointed.
Justice Jackson pushes back on Team Trump: English common law isn't relevant because the U.S. doesn't have a king.
"The fact that courts back in the English Chancery couldn't enjoin the king, I think is not analogous or indicative of our system. The executive is supposed to be bound by the law, and the court has the power to say what the law is."
https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1923043248253121018