Would Labour had an even bigger majority without this front page and strategy by the SNP?

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

williamglenn said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding

The Trump administration is preparing to cancel a large swath of federal funding for California, an effort which could begin as soon as Friday, according to multiple sources.

Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. On Capitol Hill, at least one committee was told recently by a whistleblower that all research grants to the state were going to be cancelled, according to one of the sources familiar with the matter.

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

F*ck. We're doomed then.

We are with that attitude.

Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.

Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.

Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.

Trouble is, that's not true any more

Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies

Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes

As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-we-too-stupid-for-democracy/

Leon said:

Barnesian said:

..

Bad for Nige, good for Kemi

I wonder why?

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Dopermean said:

MattW said:

FPT:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Don’t get me overexcited

By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.

Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like

Howling at the moon, I think.

Yaxley-Lennon declared himself bankrupt in 2021, when he was trying to avoid taking responsibility for himself.

Therefore he is not eligible to be an MP, and therefore not PM.

Sadly once the bankruptcy order is discharged then the person can stand, internet tells me that's typically after 12 months, 5 years maximum. May 2022 in S Y-L's case. UK is overly lenient on people who deliberately evade their financial responsibilities in my opinion.

According to this he's not paid a penny of libel damages or costs to the kid he libelled, plus the 6 figure sum he owed HMRC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

Nikolai Tolstoy did much the same after he lost the Aldington libel case. He continued to live in luxury while Aldington's legal costs nearly bankrupted him.

Errrr.

What are you talking about?

You didn't know about this case?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Low,_1st_Baron_Aldington#Libel_case

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

F*ck. We're doomed then.

We are with that attitude.

Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.

Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.

Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.

Trouble is, that's not true any more

Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies

Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes

As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-we-too-stupid-for-democracy/

Man, I must have imagined that Singaporean election last month.

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.

They send someone round.

The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.

That's one option.

Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.

Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.

Andy_JS said:

"@Survation

Competency is no longer a priority. Voters are willing to try something – anything – new, just as long as it can induce a faith in what they are led to believe will be a better future. Read more analysis from our researcher @ChrisRSurvation here:"

https://x.com/Survation/status/1931024658490401295

"Despite voter uncertainties over Farage’s ability as a prospective Prime Minister or Reform’s trustworthiness in certain policy domains, Farage was nonetheless at the top of voters’ minds when it came to his skill as a party leader.

Doing well as party leader:

Farage 53%
Badenoch 33%
Starmer 32%"

https://x.com/Survation/status/1931024656263225416

Battlebus said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.

Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.

Is this PB or have I wandered onto Mumsnet?

Andy_JS said:

Barnesian said:

..

Baxtered

Ref 365, Lab 138, LD 64, SNP 36, Con 18

Ref maj 80

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=17&LAB=23&LIB=15&Reform=31&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base

Pagan2 said:

viewcode said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.

Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.

We should do away with the American concept of checks and balances which is entirely alien to our system of government. Parliament should be able to do essentially anything that it likes, whether that's nationalising the health system or declaring war.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" has distinctly Satanic roots

The thelema credo was a corruption of st augustines "Love and do as thou will" however they are both different sects of the christian credo

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

ohnotnow said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

The Ikea blackout blinds that you can control remotely are quite good, I'm told. I have friends who have hooked them up to sensors to automatically adjust them based on the light, time of day/year etc.

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

No, they don't. Guard rails don't work, they never have done. Every example of guard rail that's been tried has failed.

The electorate needs to take responsibility for its choices.

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.

Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

No, they don't. Guard rails don't work, they never have done. Every example of guard rail that's been tried has failed.

The electorate needs to take responsibility for its choices.

You've gone a bit 'bot'.

BartholomewRoberts said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

Have you see this week's Newstatesman?

Cover story:

As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2025/06/britains-new-build-nightmare-housing-crisis

There's bugger all difference between 5,634 and an average of 5,450.

And its a pathetically tiny amount that is a small fraction of what is needed.

Considering London's population has risen by 1.3 million in that time, there are 32 boroughs of London and there are an average of 2 people living in a home, then well over 20,000 homes should have been built in that time just to stand still, not a pathetically small 5,600.

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

Have you see this week's Newstatesman?

Cover story:

As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2025/06/britains-new-build-nightmare-housing-crisis

That's a good article. Sadly true

"What lurks outside Britain’s new builds is as troubling as the problems within. On modern estates, a sense of place and belonging can be an afterthought. I saw this at Millers Field, a tarmac tendril near the town of Sprowston in Norfolk, completed in 2019. Behind rings of high fences were grids and grids of boxy redbricks, with wholemeal roof tiles and narrow-eyed windows reflecting their identical neighbours – an aesthetic now almost invisibly familiar in the limbo between satellite towns and arable expanses across the UK. Beneath the drone of surrounding roundabouts, there was little activity beyond the modern-day agora of a Tesco Extra car park.

In an hour of wandering around, I discovered just two deserted playgrounds and a primary school. A resident told me of her longing for “just a little shop to pop out to”. I finally found the start of a cycle and footpath, but after following it for a few metres, it led without warning to the edge of an A-road. Car parks and bin sheds dominated the quiet closes within the estate where you might expect benches, flowerbeds and trees. Along what I assumed were walkways leading to the front doors, signs euphemistically warned cars to “slow down: shared surface”. In other words, a road."

“This is just one of many thousands of similar suburban, edge-of-city, Nowhereville-type places dominated by car-parking, without facilities and amenities properly integrated, not walkable,” said the architect Matthew Carmona, a professor at UCL’s Bartlett School of Planning...."

A world designed for @BartholomewRoberts

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.

They send someone round.

The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.

That's one option.

Blinds are really easy to do it install yourself though, if you know your way around a drill and a screwdriver.

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.

Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary

"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"

Yes. Several times. Hillary's.

They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.

Can't fault them based on my experience.

How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?

I am genuinely clueless on this

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

F*ck. We're doomed then.

We are with that attitude.

Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.

Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.

Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.

Trouble is, that's not true any more

Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies

Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes

As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-we-too-stupid-for-democracy/

Man, I must have imagined that Singaporean election last month.

Does this sound like a democracy, to you?

"Singapore has been governed by one dominant party, the People's Action Party (PAP), since independence in 1965. While other political parties exist and occasionally win seats in parliament, the PAP has maintained continuous control, overwhelmingly winning every general election since independence."

Let's see how they did THIS time....

Ah yes

PAP: 83 seats
Workers: 10
Progress: 2

Like I said, we will have PRETENDY democracy - like constitutional monarchy - and Singapore leads the way

Man, wait until I tell you about the 1984 US elections. 49 out of 50 states votes for Reagan.

If you do well, you get reelected.

That seems to be the very definition of democracy.

You'd have a point if America had voted 49 states Republican out of 50.... in every election since American Independence in 1776

Because that is the history of elections in Singapore. It is not a democracy as we know it. It is a single party autocracy, ruling a lot of state directed capitalism, with - crucially - English Common Law to temper things

rottenborough said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

Have you see this week's Newstatesman?

Cover story:

As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2025/06/britains-new-build-nightmare-housing-crisis

There's bugger all difference between 5,634 and an average of 5,450.

And its a pathetically tiny amount that is a small fraction of what is needed.

Considering London's population has risen by 1.3 million in that time, there are 32 boroughs of London and there are an average of 2 people living in a home, then well over 20,000 homes should have been built in that time just to stand still, not a pathetically small 5,600.

The article then goes on to explain in depth how utterly shit these new builds are.

I wouldn't touch a new build from one of the big boys with the proverbial.

Self build - yes. Small family builder been around generations - yes. Anyone listed on the stock market - forget it.

BartholomewRoberts said:

rottenborough said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rottenborough said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

Have you see this week's Newstatesman?

Cover story:

As the bohemia of Camden fades, its land value has spiked. The north London borough – once home to Amy Winehouse, Alan Bennett alongside his Lady in the Van and the very last of the Mohican-topped punks – has become a wonderland for property developers. Over the past decade, new-build housing has saturated the postcode like a Beck’s-sodden beer mat. From 2014-15 to 2023-24, 5,634 new builds have been built in Camden, compared with a local authority average of 5,450 in the same period in England. The din of construction is now the signature sound of a borough that once echoed with Britpop.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2025/06/britains-new-build-nightmare-housing-crisis

There's bugger all difference between 5,634 and an average of 5,450.

And its a pathetically tiny amount that is a small fraction of what is needed.

Considering London's population has risen by 1.3 million in that time, there are 32 boroughs of London and there are an average of 2 people living in a home, then well over 20,000 homes should have been built in that time just to stand still, not a pathetically small 5,600.

The article then goes on to explain in depth how utterly shit these new builds are.

I wouldn't touch a new build from one of the big boys with the proverbial.

Self build - yes. Small family builder been around generations - yes. Anyone listed on the stock market - forget it.

If you think a new build is shit, you should see the alternative of rented accommodation.

I own one of those new builds. Here in the North West, not Camden.

It is vastly better quality than the terrible, damp accommodation we were renting before we bought this.

My wife and I both agree our quality of life is much better in our own home.

We should break the oligopoly of developers by liberating planning, but not oppose developments. Any developments are better than none.

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated

Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

Absolutely nothing should be beyond the whim of the electorate.

The way to ensure liberty is to have an electorate that values it.

False safety blankets like you want just mean the electorate takes it for granted and goes against it, and liberties die then, because false protections are no protection at all.

Putin's Russia was in the ECHR. The ECHR did nothing to reign in Putin.

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated

Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated

Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?

Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated

Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?

Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer

You're wandering off point.

maxh said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.

Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary

"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"

Yes. Several times. Hillary's.

They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.

Can't fault them based on my experience.

How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?

I am genuinely clueless on this

Have you considered asking ChatGPT?

Am I allowed to answer this?

Given that you are a mod, then I presume it is - and yes, of course I have. And ChatGPT has given me great advice, on all aspects of my domestic makeover. ChatGPT will even do mock-ups of your home interiors in your chosen new colours - you feed it a photo of your living room and say "what will this look like in Farrow and Ball's Byzantine Blue?" and it will do it for you, transform the room on screen. Incredible

HOWEVER I am aware these machines can hallucinate, so I wanted to know if ChatGPT's advice on blinds matches real world experience, on here

PB, you've gone a bit weird lately.

I mean, I can cope with the endless frothing about random islands in the Indian Ocean. I can cope with the endless hyperbole around a boring but functional government being the Worst Government Ever(TM). I can even cope with the genocide apologists.

But, the board's edgelord-in-chief getting you all discussing the best way to replace the blinds in your flat?! That's beyond the pale I'm afraid.

Pagan2 said:

The thing that bothers me most about kinablu's idea that there are fundamentals the electorate shouldn't have a say on implementing

a) Who gets to decide what these fundamentals are?
b) By what right do they decide
c) How do I vote them out if we don't think those fundamentals are right

I am sure he would be the first to complain if they decided the fundamentals were

1) All things should be privatised including utilities and transport no exceptions
2) No one should have tax taken from them to support the unemployed because its not fair to take peoples money to support them
3) All socialists should be sent to reeducation camps for the criminally stupid


He merely imagines these fundamentals would be all things he supports which is why he thinks they are a good idea

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rottenborough said:

algarkirk said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

The rigmarole is to marry the sort of person who understands that sort of thing who can work out who is best to talk to to get it sorted and understands that if they get you to do it it will end up in a muddle. Don't try to understand it, just pay the bill.

Is there another way? Ask Dear Mary

"Has anyone ever bought blinds??"

Yes. Several times. Hillary's.

They come, they measure, they show pattern books, they quote, you sign, they come back and fit and the job is done.

Can't fault them based on my experience.

How much for some nice wooden blinds for two floor-to-ceiling sash windows? Including fitting?

I am genuinely clueless on this

Have you considered asking ChatGPT?

Am I allowed to answer this?

Given that you are a mod, then I presume it is - and yes, of course I have. And ChatGPT has given me great advice, on all aspects of my domestic makeover. ChatGPT will even do mock-ups of your home interiors in your chosen new colours - you feed it a photo of your living room and say "what will this look like in Farrow and Ball's Byzantine Blue?" and it will do it for you, transform the room on screen. Incredible

HOWEVER I am aware these machines can hallucinate, so I wanted to know if ChatGPT's advice on blinds matches real world experience, on here

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

F*ck. We're doomed then.

We are with that attitude.

Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.

Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.

Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.

Trouble is, that's not true any more

Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies

Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes

As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-we-too-stupid-for-democracy/

OldKingCole said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Stansted is turning into quite a seductive airport. Just went from plane to the Stansted express to london in about 23 minutes and that included passports and hold luggage collection. Yes

Now the train will take 32 minutes to Tottenham Hale and then 15 minutes on the Tube to Kings X

Outbound was just as efficient. Luggage processing machines are eliminating the check in queue

Now all they need is contactless ticketing. Fancy calling yourself a "London" airport, but being outside the contactless ticketing area.

Southend Airport calls itself London, too, and is outside the area.

Theuniondivvie said:

Battlebus said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

My house didn't come with blinds or curtains so I had to buy and install them myself. They're easy enough to do.

Measure twice, cut order once would be my advice.

Is this PB or have I wandered onto Mumsnet?

Centrist (or not so centrist) Dadsnet.

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated

Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?

Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer

You're wandering off point.

At least I have one

tlg86 said:

How long before Dawn French issues a grovelling apology?

https://x.com/Dawn_French/status/1930608701737488779

Mexicanpete said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

scampi25 said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

They need some guard rails, is all.

What happens when the majority think the guard rails needed are different to the ones you consider necessary?

A lot of what you lefties for example call for like nationalisation of rail wouldn't be legal under eu rules

That's not what I mean. I'm talking about enshrining certain fundamentals beyond the whim of politicians. I'll put you down as agreeing since I'm sure you would if we spent hours hashing it out. That's the beauty of knowing you the way I do. We don't need to go through all that.

No I don't agree, if 90% of the electorate want something they shouldn't be barred from having it implemented because some flouncy accountant's "progressive" principles feel violated

Where are you getting the notion that politicians only do things the electorate want?

Where have I claimed they do, but to remind you I also think representative democracy is not democracy as I would define it. 1 vote every 5 years for someone who claims they will do x,y and z then fails to even try is not democracy.....cf Keir Starmer

You're wandering off point.

At least I have one

That is unnecessarily rude! Oh, I see....