Incidentally, I note @rcs1000 that you made comparisons with 20 years ago, but I can't find the comparable data from 20 years ago so I don't know what you're looking at. The survey was changed 12 years ago it seems to expand how it asked about sexual offences. So comparisons with a decade ago seem to be comparing like for like (and surprisingly this shows a significant increase) while comparisons with 20 years ago are not, since the methodology and questioning is significantly different.
If you could share what data from 20 years ago you're looking at, and whether its a like-for-like comparison with modern surveys, I would be curious.
That's actually a really interesting point: rape has come down sharply, from 1.2% of women having reported being raped to 0.4%. On the other hand, sexual assault has increased quite markedly.
So - there's a question about whether people previously counted sexual assault as rape, and now are categorising it correctly. On the other hand, there's the equal issue that people tend to take these things a lot more seriously than they used to.
Can you please cite your source as to where you're getting 1.2% from as I simply don't see it. Certainly not since the survey was changed 12 years ago to ask similar questions annually.
Pic of the day, I don't see a chart in the most recent survey, but there was one in 2020 and rape has shown to be pretty flat in that time. Sexual assaults seemed to decrease until 2014 (though caveats that the methodology changed so hard to compare data) and increased since then (and post-2020 seem to have continued increasing) barring a dip during Covid.
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
The fact that the police have nicked suspects and are not looking for anyone else at present is all we need to know at this point. It shows that police take these crimes seriously and are protecting the public.
If they're White, we hear about it within minutes; if they're not (let alone a migrant) it's "please don't prejudice enquires or community relations".
The police are actually worsening community relations with their behaviour.
It'd be much better to be upfront about it all, or to reveal nothing until enquiries are concluded, and that way they'd maintain confidence and trust.
Dyno-Rod would be obvious (assuming they still exist)
One of my favourite tube lines because you're never quite sure when you're going under the river. Mysterious.
Isn't that true of all tube lines?
The East London line has the visibly different Brunel tunnel.
Was that not superseded by Overground ?
When I worked in London at Alstom, many years ago, I took an afternoon off to watch The Mousetrap and ride the East London line.
Friends of mine moved to Rotherhithe in what was then yuppie flats (it was just after the St Mary Axe bomb). I went to their place by way of the north bank just to treat myself to the tunnel.
Talking about Brunel, there has recently been work (in both senses) on his (relatively) forgotten swing bridge in the shadow of the Clifton Bridge (or it would be if it weren't due south ...).
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Thgat's not true at all about Liverpool - the usual assumptions were made and there was shock that he turned out to be a normal bloke and there was a lot of desperate chat about PTSD as a result.
And they didn't try to keep the alleged rape quiet - they just didn't publish any further details about the individuals. For community tensions - well they aren't wrong, are they? Their first responsibility is to keep people safe and they often provide dubious advice as a result, like telling me to not cycle on an A road even though I'm perfectly entitled to.
It's telling that the local councillors didn't make any statements either - they are terrified of seeing their local community burnt down, and there is no doubt it's effective to wait a few days to kill the momentum of such disorder. Is that sustainable in the long term? I don't know, but I think almost all of us would make the same decision if we were in that position.
I wouldn't.
I don't share the view that our domestic population are a bunch of barely restrained apes whose base sentiments need to be actively managed.
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
The fact that the police have nicked suspects and are not looking for anyone else at present is all we need to know at this point. It shows that police take these crimes seriously and are protecting the public.
If they're White, we hear about it within minutes; if they're not (let alone a migrant) it's "please don't prejudice enquires or community relations".
The police are actually worsening community relations with their behaviour.
It'd be much better to be upfront about it all, or to reveal nothing until enquiries are concluded, and that way they'd maintain confidence and trust.
A two-tier approach is the worst of all worlds.
sure it's all the fault of the police and the lawyers, not the thousands of social media accounts seeking to undermine our society
If Canada wants to join the EU, absolutely they should do it - it's for them to decide.
But Canada isn't in Europe.
Hawaii isn't in America
The Falklands isn't in the British Isles.
But perhaps it should be. Maybe the remaining overseas territories should be represented in parliament. Tricky tax wise.
Suggested back in the '50s. The French do it, of course, which is probably why we don't.
We have always made our overseas territories into separate jurisdictions. Gibraltar isn't in the UK either. Not sure why but there are obvious legal benefits.
They allow dodgy Brits to do dodgy financial stuff without having to go fully abroad to do it?
See the Guardian's story on the boss of Yorkshire Water.
"Revealed: Yorkshire Water boss was paid extra £1.3m via offshore parent firm"
That appears quite shocking.
Ditto Mr Baroness Mone's Gibraltar slushtrust fund
It's quite unsurprising. Don't all the water companies have a similar look at web of holding companies in order to bamboozle the regulator, and allow dividends to be paid without worrying about what the regulator might have to say ?
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
The fact that the police have nicked suspects and are not looking for anyone else at present is all we need to know at this point. It shows that police take these crimes seriously and are protecting the public.
If they're White, we hear about it within minutes; if they're not (let alone a migrant) it's "please don't prejudice enquires or community relations".
The police are actually worsening community relations with their behaviour.
It'd be much better to be upfront about it all, or to reveal nothing until enquiries are concluded, and that way they'd maintain confidence and trust.
A two-tier approach is the worst of all worlds.
sure it's all the fault of the police and the lawyers, not the thousands of social media accounts seeking to undermine our society
That is, the white cloud that Danny Kruger MP wishes to push out of publIC life and deny Government funding.
Yes. (Slightly less than 60 words).
“An ideology underpinned by the postmodernist notion that our understanding of reality is produced in the context of linguistic and cultural frameworks, that knowledge is a construct of power wielded oppressively through language, and therefore censorship and other authoritarian measures are necessary to reshape society.”
Thank-you. This is helpful as an example of a definition from the Right. The Liberty Fund is neoliberal-libertarian, so this is roughly from the interventionist US Right (say Dubya).
To my eye "ideology" is better than inventing a competitor religion as done by Maga, which is less rational.
The actual defintion is by Andrew Doyle, and the piece by Theodore Dalyrymple (see famous Teddies from the other day). He uses my analogy of a cloud as the concept of "woke", around which he perambulates.
Looking back at that definition with my lunch, this strikes me as simply true, and not a "postmodern notion":
"the postmodernist notion that our understanding of reality is produced in the context of linguistic and cultural frameworks
How on earth could you get an "understanding of reality" outside "linguistic and cultural frameworks"?
It's impossible to be alive and thinking without being in such frameworks.
In this Andrew Doyle is trying to imagine his own view as the "objective centre", for want of a better term. That claim is nonsense.
If Canada wants to join the EU, absolutely they should do it - it's for them to decide.
But Canada isn't in Europe.
Hawaii isn't in America
The Falklands isn't in the British Isles.
But perhaps it should be. Maybe the remaining overseas territories should be represented in parliament. Tricky tax wise.
Suggested back in the '50s. The French do it, of course, which is probably why we don't.
We have always made our overseas territories into separate jurisdictions. Gibraltar isn't in the UK either. Not sure why but there are obvious legal benefits.
They allow dodgy Brits to do dodgy financial stuff without having to go fully abroad to do it?
See the Guardian's story on the boss of Yorkshire Water.
"Revealed: Yorkshire Water boss was paid extra £1.3m via offshore parent firm"
That appears quite shocking.
Ditto Mr Baroness Mone's Gibraltar slushtrust fund
It's quite unsurprising. Don't all the water companies have a similar look at web of holding companies in order to bamboozle the regulator, and allow dividends to be paid without worrying about what the regulator might have to say ?
More that such a structure of holding cookies is utterly standard in Big Business.
That is, the white cloud that Danny Kruger MP wishes to push out of publIC life and deny Government funding.
Yes. (Slightly less than 60 words).
“An ideology underpinned by the postmodernist notion that our understanding of reality is produced in the context of linguistic and cultural frameworks, that knowledge is a construct of power wielded oppressively through language, and therefore censorship and other authoritarian measures are necessary to reshape society.”
Thank-you. This is helpful as an example of a definition from the Right. The Liberty Fund is neoliberal-libertarian, so this is roughly from the interventionist US Right (say Dubya).
To my eye "ideology" is better than inventing a competitor religion as done by Maga, which is less rational.
The actual defintion is by Andrew Doyle, and the piece by Theodore Dalyrymple (see famous Teddies from the other day). He uses my analogy of a cloud as the concept of "woke", around which he perambulates.
Looking back at that definition with my lunch, this strikes me as simply true, and not a "postmodern notion":
"the postmodernist notion that our understanding of reality is produced in the context of linguistic and cultural frameworks
How on earth could you get an "understanding of reality" outside "linguistic and cultural frameworks"?
It's impossible to be alive and thinking without being in such frameworks.
In this Andrew Doyle is trying to imagine his own view as the "objective centre", for want of a better term. That claim is nonsense.
You asked yesterday what is Woke. What the police are doing now is "Woke", and they've been entirely corrupted by it.
It leads to a two-tier approach to community relations, polarisation, anger and radical politics.
Your ideology is utterly toxic.
Log-off, and spend the afternoon having a good hard think about it.
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
What you're then saying (just so I'm clear) is that all HMOs containing asylum seekers should be publicly listed - okay, but you and I both know that will "encourage" some individuals to be perhaps a little less neighbourly and go round with the pitchforks (and not to help with the gardening).
Every one gets tarred with the same brush before they get tarred and feathered. We would then see crowds of concerned citizens (or mobs depending on your viewpoint) outside these properties demanding the individuals be moved. In essence, it would be analogous to what happened in Ulster in the late 60s and early 70s or Ballymena earlier in the year.
Apart from upholding the law, the Police have the not inconsiderable task of maintaining public order - what you are proposing might be good for those advocating transparency but we both know there would be a public order implication just as there would have been if Northern Rock had been allowed to collapse.
Again, were back to the right to know versus the need to know and it's not an easy one to resolve.
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
With all due respect, you don’t get to decide whether my comments are “appropriate”. I’ll just ignore the rest of your guff. As usual
Your racist tropes are only a problem to the mods if they decide they might damage the site, clearly they don't see any jeopardy and that is fair enough. You have already had two likes for your reply to me, so clearly some posters are loving your conflation of particularly unpleasant crimes by asylum seekers with Islam. I would prefer that correlation was not made because I don't believe it to be true. I suspect others who feel the same have either left or post at a time before you stir.
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
That is, the white cloud that Danny Kruger MP wishes to push out of publIC life and deny Government funding.
Yes. (Slightly less than 60 words).
“An ideology underpinned by the postmodernist notion that our understanding of reality is produced in the context of linguistic and cultural frameworks, that knowledge is a construct of power wielded oppressively through language, and therefore censorship and other authoritarian measures are necessary to reshape society.”
Thank-you. This is helpful as an example of a definition from the Right. The Liberty Fund is neoliberal-libertarian, so this is roughly from the interventionist US Right (say Dubya).
To my eye "ideology" is better than inventing a competitor religion as done by Maga, which is less rational.
The actual defintion is by Andrew Doyle, and the piece by Theodore Dalyrymple (see famous Teddies from the other day). He uses my analogy of a cloud as the concept of "woke", around which he perambulates.
Looking back at that definition with my lunch, this strikes me as simply true, and not a "postmodern notion":
"the postmodernist notion that our understanding of reality is produced in the context of linguistic and cultural frameworks
How on earth could you get an "understanding of reality" outside "linguistic and cultural frameworks"?
It's impossible to be alive and thinking without being in such frameworks.
In this Andrew Doyle is trying to imagine his own view as the "objective centre", for want of a better term. That claim is nonsense.
“ How on earth could you get an "understanding of reality" outside "linguistic and cultural frameworks"?”
According to various articles I’ve read, the idea is that existing "linguistic and cultural frameworks" are toxic and must be replaced, so that reality will be understood in the correct way.
See the emphasis on language - blacklists, latinx etc.
And that’s before we get to “Maths is racist and imperialist”
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
Definitely continuity Sunak for the first six months.
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
You were quite right. But your suggestion was to keep voting Conservative. And no sane person could do that, could they? Not after the Boriswave, not after 14 years of terrible governance, not after the Afghan lies, not after etc etc etc
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
You were quite right. But your suggestion was to keep voting Conservative. And no sane person could do that, could they? Not after the Boriswave, not after 14 years of terrible governance, not after the Afghan lies, not after etc etc etc
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
Given the state of the polls the descent could well accelerate if they hold til the next GE.
Next year, in Wales, we could end up with the Faragistas and Plaid as the two biggest parties.
Doubtful if two ethno-nationalist parties, composed of angry white van and tractor drivers, is likely to improve the governance of the principality,
Dyno-Rod would be obvious (assuming they still exist)
One of my favourite tube lines because you're never quite sure when you're going under the river. Mysterious.
Fun fact(s):
When opened in 1898, was the second deep-level Tube line after the City & South London (now part of the Northern Line).
Waterloo & City was part of the LSWR 1898 to 1923, SR from 1923 to 1948, and BR from 1948 to 1994.
The current trains are almost exactly the same as the Central Line 1992 Stock, except they retain arm rests and run as 4-car instead of 8-car.
The "& City" name is because the LSWR Bank station platforms were known as "City" until 1940.
Known colloquially as "the Drain".
And we've all seen it on film, including in Sliding Doors as, usually not operating at weekends, it is the ideal stand in for any tube station and line
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
Definitely continuity Sunak for the first six months.
He’s done better this year.
But he's not continuity Sunak, is he?
He's added £60bn of extra spending each year to the deficit, threatening our solvency, snuffled out any growth, jacked up interest rates and gilt prices, upped taxes, increased small boats, given away British territory and interests in one-sided deals, failed to exert any meaningful British leadership internationally and failed to make any meaningful reforms domestically. And everyone either hates him or doesn't respect him.
I'm afraid I don't see any measure by which he's done better this year.
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
You were quite right. But your suggestion was to keep voting Conservative. And no sane person could do that, could they? Not after the Boriswave, not after 14 years of terrible governance, not after the Afghan lies, not after etc etc etc
I was voting for Sunak/Hunt, not Boris.
But I agree the wider party was pretty venal and almost ungovernable.
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
I’ve watched a fair few Dragons Den, 🙄, never heard of her.
Is she related to Sir Anthony Meyer ?
Ooh, I remember Sir Anthony. Even met him once or twice. A baronet with an appropriately lively private life. The "stalking donkey" who anticipated Hezza's move against Mrs T.
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
I think it’s better
Starmer and Labour have been a dreadful disappointment, and they have made some horrendous political errors such as Gaza, WFA and the benefits fiasco, however for those of us not wearing their blue scarves too tightly around our necks, they are no worse and probably somewhat less negative than Sunak and considerably less chaotic than Truss and Johnson. Foreign policy on the whole has been viewed seriously and a marked improvement in a dangerous world.
Some policies have been very poorly thought through and the communications even more inept, but worse than what went before? Not yet anyway.
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
He comes here for the pushback. semi-demi-fascist-politicalbetting.com would bore all the @SeanTs instantly.
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
Definitely continuity Sunak for the first six months.
He’s done better this year.
But he's not continuity Sunak, is he?
He's added £60bn of extra spending each year to the deficit, threatening our solvency, snuffled out any growth, jacked up interest rates and gilt prices, upped taxes, increased small boats, given away British territory and interests in one-sided deals, failed to exert any meaningful British leadership internationally and failed to make any meaningful reforms domestically. And everyone either hates him or doesn't respect him.
I'm afraid I don't see any measure by which he's done better this year.
His handling of the Trump and the tariffs situation I think was smart. Especially when idiots like the Lib Dem’s demanded we apply tariffs to US imports.
There’s other stuff but I’m off for Sunday lunch in five so it will wait.
Our solvency wasn’t helped by your lot cutting NI twice. Totally reckless
Labour have not been great but their legacy from the Tories was a Shit sandwich without the bread.
What happened to interest rates thanks to Rishi firing up the printer ?
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
I think it’s better
Starmer and Labour have been a dreadful disappointment, and they have made some horrendous political errors such as Gaza, WFA and the benefits fiasco, however for those of us not wearing their blue scarves too tightly around our necks, they are no worse and probably somewhat less negative than Sunak and considerably less chaotic than Truss and Johnson. Foreign policy on the whole has been viewed seriously and a marked improvement in a dangerous world.
Some policies have been very poorly thought through and the communications even more inept, but worse than what went before? Not yet anyway.
I find noticing the difference between this lot and Sunak hard. A bit worse at negotiation, perhaps?
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
Definitely continuity Sunak for the first six months.
He’s done better this year.
But he's not continuity Sunak, is he?
He's added £60bn of extra spending each year to the deficit, threatening our solvency, snuffled out any growth, jacked up interest rates and gilt prices, upped taxes, increased small boats, given away British territory and interests in one-sided deals, failed to exert any meaningful British leadership internationally and failed to make any meaningful reforms domestically. And everyone either hates him or doesn't respect him.
I'm afraid I don't see any measure by which he's done better this year.
Only because you lack the imagination as to how terrible more Tory government would have been
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
With all due respect, you don’t get to decide whether my comments are “appropriate”. I’ll just ignore the rest of your guff. As usual
Your racist tropes are only a problem to the mods if they decide they might damage the site, clearly they don't see any jeopardy and that is fair enough. You have already had two likes for your reply to me, so clearly some posters are loving your conflation of particularly unpleasant crimes by asylum seekers with Islam. I would prefer that correlation was not made because I don't believe it to be true. I suspect others who feel the same have either left or post at a time before you stir.
What you want is a site made up of boring, mewling, intellectually mediocre centrist Dads like you, with no unpleasant right wing people to say uncomfortable things. Consequently, along with your likeminded dorks @IanB2 and @bondegezou you constantly and endlessly nudge, suggest and sometimes basically request the mods to ban me. Notice that I never do that to you, by the way
If you can broaden that tiny mind of yours, imagine if you succeeded. Imagine if you managed to ban me, forever, and those that think like me (@williamglenn is already gone). The site would be calm and quiet for a few days, and you’d congratulate yourselves, but then you’d realise that it was becoming seriously dull, and full of dreary centrist chat. And then you’d see it was endlessly getting worse and smaller as everyone drifted away, in apathy and indifference,, but by then it would be too late, and then the site would die
We know this, because it has already happened to Bluesky. The site is dying because it is dominated by the intolerant Woke and it turns out these people - you - are mulishly unimaginative and indefatigably tedious. Like you
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
I think it’s better
Starmer and Labour have been a dreadful disappointment, and they have made some horrendous political errors such as Gaza, WFA and the benefits fiasco, however for those of us not wearing their blue scarves too tightly around our necks, they are no worse and probably somewhat less negative than Sunak and considerably less chaotic than Truss and Johnson. Foreign policy on the whole has been viewed seriously and a marked improvement in a dangerous world.
Some policies have been very poorly thought through and the communications even more inept, but worse than what went before? Not yet anyway.
Gaza is one where Starmer has managed to offend everyone. To the point that if he recognises Palestine, the Jezzbolah won’t even give him credit. They will simply move to the next demand. The recognition of Hamas as the government of Gaza.
Someone vaguely on-topic having served that nice Mr Cameron, as per the Sun's subhead quoted.
"Dragon's Den Star" is pushing it a bit. Apparently she was on some short lived online only version of it 16 years ago. And advisor was 20 odd other business people involved in some talking shop about entrepreneurship.
No wonder no has heard of her. Seems to be another one of those billy bullshitters that managed to luck out during the early 2000s dot com bubble and lived on the back of it.
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
With all due respect, you don’t get to decide whether my comments are “appropriate”. I’ll just ignore the rest of your guff. As usual
Your racist tropes are only a problem to the mods if they decide they might damage the site, clearly they don't see any jeopardy and that is fair enough. You have already had two likes for your reply to me, so clearly some posters are loving your conflation of particularly unpleasant crimes by asylum seekers with Islam. I would prefer that correlation was not made because I don't believe it to be true. I suspect others who feel the same have either left or post at a time before you stir.
What you want is a site made up of boring, mewling, intellectually mediocre centrist Dads like you, with no unpleasant right wing people to say uncomfortable things. Consequently, along with your likeminded dorks @IanB2 and @bondegezou you constantly and endlessly nudge, suggest and sometimes basically request the mods to ban me. Notice that I never do that to you, by the way
If you can broaden that tiny mind of yours, imagine if you succeeded. Imagine if you managed to ban me, forever, and those that think like me (@williamglenn is already gone). The site would be calm and quiet for a few days, and you’d congratulate yourselves, but then you’d realise that it was becoming seriously dull, and full of dreary centrist chat. And then you’d see it was endlessly getting worse and smaller as everyone drifted away, in apathy and indifference,, but by then it would be too late, and then the site would die
We know this, because it has already happened to Bluesky. The site is dying because it is dominated by the intolerant Woke and it turns out these people - you - are mulishly unimaginative and indefatigably tedious. Like you
Says the most tediously narrow minded poster here...
The mods should act, not because you have right wing views (blinkered and unthinking though they are), but because it is quite obvious you want to see some sort of mass violence and race war and are continually stirring and agitating and posting alarmist rubbish while trying to dance along the line beyond which you'd be gone.
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
I think it’s better
Starmer and Labour have been a dreadful disappointment, and they have made some horrendous political errors such as Gaza, WFA and the benefits fiasco, however for those of us not wearing their blue scarves too tightly around our necks, they are no worse and probably somewhat less negative than Sunak and considerably less chaotic than Truss and Johnson. Foreign policy on the whole has been viewed seriously and a marked improvement in a dangerous world.
Some policies have been very poorly thought through and the communications even more inept, but worse than what went before? Not yet anyway.
Gaza is one where Starmer has managed to offend everyone. To the point that if he recognises Palestine, the Jezzbolah won’t even give him credit. They will simply move to the next demand. The recognition of Hamas as the government of Gaza.
His U turn on Palestine has been welcomed by me, but I would agree with Jeremy Bowen, the U turn is just too late to receive any political benefit either here or in Palestine.
I don't believe there is any recognition of Hamas's role in the future of Palestine implicit in anything said by Starmer, Macron or Carney.
Family bought car as surprise birthday present but did not insure it. Waitress could not insure car because she did not know it existed (and could not drive anyway).
Convicted under the Single Justice Procedure. Expect more on this because it also is used for TV licence cases, so allows rival media empires to take a pop at the BBC. Nonetheless, reform would seem popular and cheap so it is no surprise that governments show no interest.
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
With all due respect, you don’t get to decide whether my comments are “appropriate”. I’ll just ignore the rest of your guff. As usual
Your racist tropes are only a problem to the mods if they decide they might damage the site, clearly they don't see any jeopardy and that is fair enough. You have already had two likes for your reply to me, so clearly some posters are loving your conflation of particularly unpleasant crimes by asylum seekers with Islam. I would prefer that correlation was not made because I don't believe it to be true. I suspect others who feel the same have either left or post at a time before you stir.
What you want is a site made up of boring, mewling, intellectually mediocre centrist Dads like you, with no unpleasant right wing people to say uncomfortable things. Consequently, along with your likeminded dorks @IanB2 and @bondegezou you constantly and endlessly nudge, suggest and sometimes basically request the mods to ban me. Notice that I never do that to you, by the way
If you can broaden that tiny mind of yours, imagine if you succeeded. Imagine if you managed to ban me, forever, and those that think like me (@williamglenn is already gone). The site would be calm and quiet for a few days, and you’d congratulate yourselves, but then you’d realise that it was becoming seriously dull, and full of dreary centrist chat. And then you’d see it was endlessly getting worse and smaller as everyone drifted away, in apathy and indifference,, but by then it would be too late, and then the site would die
We know this, because it has already happened to Bluesky. The site is dying because it is dominated by the intolerant Woke and it turns out these people - you - are mulishly unimaginative and indefatigably tedious. Like you
I found William on the whole to be very polite. His analysis on the other hand was often peculiar. You by contrast are neither polite nor insightful.
I have no desire to see you banned. You'd only come back as someone else. Can I not comment on your unpleasant conflation of vile crimes with Islam. If you can demonstrate Jimmy Savile was a closet Muslim you may have a point.
Family bought car as surprise birthday present but did not insure it. Waitress could not insure car because she did not know it existed (and could not drive anyway).
Convicted under the Single Justice Procedure. Expect more on this because it also is used for TV licence cases, so allows rival media empires to take a pop at the BBC. Nonetheless, reform would seem popular and cheap so it is no surprise that governments show no interest.
Why would we get more?
The SJP has been in place for more than 10 years.
In EW it's used in 2/3 of cases in Magistrates Courts (AI).
That is, the white cloud that Danny Kruger MP wishes to push out of publIC life and deny Government funding.
Yes. (Slightly less than 60 words).
“An ideology underpinned by the postmodernist notion that our understanding of reality is produced in the context of linguistic and cultural frameworks, that knowledge is a construct of power wielded oppressively through language, and therefore censorship and other authoritarian measures are necessary to reshape society.”
Thank-you. This is helpful as an example of a definition from the Right. The Liberty Fund is neoliberal-libertarian, so this is roughly from the interventionist US Right (say Dubya).
To my eye "ideology" is better than inventing a competitor religion as done by Maga, which is less rational.
The actual defintion is by Andrew Doyle, and the piece by Theodore Dalyrymple (see famous Teddies from the other day). He uses my analogy of a cloud as the concept of "woke", around which he perambulates.
Looking back at that definition with my lunch, this strikes me as simply true, and not a "postmodern notion":
"the postmodernist notion that our understanding of reality is produced in the context of linguistic and cultural frameworks
How on earth could you get an "understanding of reality" outside "linguistic and cultural frameworks"?
It's impossible to be alive and thinking without being in such frameworks.
In this Andrew Doyle is trying to imagine his own view as the "objective centre", for want of a better term. That claim is nonsense.
“ How on earth could you get an "understanding of reality" outside "linguistic and cultural frameworks"?”
According to various articles I’ve read, the idea is that existing "linguistic and cultural frameworks" are toxic and must be replaced, so that reality will be understood in the correct way.
See the emphasis on language - blacklists, latinx etc.
And that’s before we get to “Maths is racist and imperialist”
If there were different linguistic and cultural frameworks, then our understanding of reality would be different.
We can only describe the world using the discourse that is available to us.
Family bought car as surprise birthday present but did not insure it. Waitress could not insure car because she did not know it existed (and could not drive anyway).
Convicted under the Single Justice Procedure. Expect more on this because it also is used for TV licence cases, so allows rival media empires to take a pop at the BBC. Nonetheless, reform would seem popular and cheap so it is no surprise that governments show no interest.
Does seems a case of being harshly treated however it appears she didn't respond to the letter saying they had a fine to pay which would have resolved the issue before going anywhere near a court and she plead guilty.
You never ever ignore communications like this. You respond straight away even if to query it / ask for more information, then there is a paper trail of you trying to resolve the matter.
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
With all due respect, you don’t get to decide whether my comments are “appropriate”. I’ll just ignore the rest of your guff. As usual
Your racist tropes are only a problem to the mods if they decide they might damage the site, clearly they don't see any jeopardy and that is fair enough. You have already had two likes for your reply to me, so clearly some posters are loving your conflation of particularly unpleasant crimes by asylum seekers with Islam. I would prefer that correlation was not made because I don't believe it to be true. I suspect others who feel the same have either left or post at a time before you stir.
What you want is a site made up of boring, mewling, intellectually mediocre centrist Dads like you, with no unpleasant right wing people to say uncomfortable things. Consequently, along with your likeminded dorks @IanB2 and @bondegezou you constantly and endlessly nudge, suggest and sometimes basically request the mods to ban me. Notice that I never do that to you, by the way
If you can broaden that tiny mind of yours, imagine if you succeeded. Imagine if you managed to ban me, forever, and those that think like me (@williamglenn is already gone). The site would be calm and quiet for a few days, and you’d congratulate yourselves, but then you’d realise that it was becoming seriously dull, and full of dreary centrist chat. And then you’d see it was endlessly getting worse and smaller as everyone drifted away, in apathy and indifference,, but by then it would be too late, and then the site would die
We know this, because it has already happened to Bluesky. The site is dying because it is dominated by the intolerant Woke and it turns out these people - you - are mulishly unimaginative and indefatigably tedious. Like you
Says the most tediously narrow minded poster here...
The mods should act, not because you have right wing views (blinkered and unthinking though they are), but because it is quite obvious you want to see some sort of mass violence and race war and are continually stirring and agitating and posting alarmist rubbish while trying to dance along the line beyond which you'd be gone.
Aaaaand, another call to ban me
I know I grossly humiliated you years ago, but you really should move on. Find a bar. Talk to a human. There must be one willing to engage with you, even as you tragically wander around Europe with a pet. Maybe do baby steps first. Try talking to homeless crippled people, they won’t be able to move away from you really quickly, unlike everyone else
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
A very good post. I often come close to revealing the hypocracy by bringing back to life some old posts by SeanT where he boasts about his exploits with Bankok schoolgirls but I like to think that like most on here who read the same stuff it's better just to walk away
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
He comes here for the pushback. semi-demi-fascist-politicalbetting.com would bore all the @SeanTs instantly.
If only people would ignore these sad people who devote their lives to picking fights on social media, they'd almost certainly go away.
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
With all due respect, you don’t get to decide whether my comments are “appropriate”. I’ll just ignore the rest of your guff. As usual
Your racist tropes are only a problem to the mods if they decide they might damage the site, clearly they don't see any jeopardy and that is fair enough. You have already had two likes for your reply to me, so clearly some posters are loving your conflation of particularly unpleasant crimes by asylum seekers with Islam. I would prefer that correlation was not made because I don't believe it to be true. I suspect others who feel the same have either left or post at a time before you stir.
What you want is a site made up of boring, mewling, intellectually mediocre centrist Dads like you, with no unpleasant right wing people to say uncomfortable things. Consequently, along with your likeminded dorks @IanB2 and @bondegezou you constantly and endlessly nudge, suggest and sometimes basically request the mods to ban me. Notice that I never do that to you, by the way
If you can broaden that tiny mind of yours, imagine if you succeeded. Imagine if you managed to ban me, forever, and those that think like me (@williamglenn is already gone). The site would be calm and quiet for a few days, and you’d congratulate yourselves, but then you’d realise that it was becoming seriously dull, and full of dreary centrist chat. And then you’d see it was endlessly getting worse and smaller as everyone drifted away, in apathy and indifference,, but by then it would be too late, and then the site would die
We know this, because it has already happened to Bluesky. The site is dying because it is dominated by the intolerant Woke and it turns out these people - you - are mulishly unimaginative and indefatigably tedious. Like you
Says the most tediously narrow minded poster here...
The mods should act, not because you have right wing views (blinkered and unthinking though they are), but because it is quite obvious you want to see some sort of mass violence and race war and are continually stirring and agitating and posting alarmist rubbish while trying to dance along the line beyond which you'd be gone.
Aaaaand, another call to ban me
I know I grossly humiliated you years ago, but you really should move on. Find a bar. Talk to a human. There must be one willing to engage with you, even as you tragically wander around Europe with a pet. Maybe do baby steps first. Try talking to homeless crippled people, they won’t be able to move away from you really quickly, unlike everyone else
What a pathetic response, insofar as it is any response at all.
Yes, you should be banned, and the forum would be better without your trail of stinking slime.
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
With all due respect, you don’t get to decide whether my comments are “appropriate”. I’ll just ignore the rest of your guff. As usual
Your racist tropes are only a problem to the mods if they decide they might damage the site, clearly they don't see any jeopardy and that is fair enough. You have already had two likes for your reply to me, so clearly some posters are loving your conflation of particularly unpleasant crimes by asylum seekers with Islam. I would prefer that correlation was not made because I don't believe it to be true. I suspect others who feel the same have either left or post at a time before you stir.
What you want is a site made up of boring, mewling, intellectually mediocre centrist Dads like you, with no unpleasant right wing people to say uncomfortable things. Consequently, along with your likeminded dorks @IanB2 and @bondegezou you constantly and endlessly nudge, suggest and sometimes basically request the mods to ban me. Notice that I never do that to you, by the way
If you can broaden that tiny mind of yours, imagine if you succeeded. Imagine if you managed to ban me, forever, and those that think like me (@williamglenn is already gone). The site would be calm and quiet for a few days, and you’d congratulate yourselves, but then you’d realise that it was becoming seriously dull, and full of dreary centrist chat. And then you’d see it was endlessly getting worse and smaller as everyone drifted away, in apathy and indifference,, but by then it would be too late, and then the site would die
We know this, because it has already happened to Bluesky. The site is dying because it is dominated by the intolerant Woke and it turns out these people - you - are mulishly unimaginative and indefatigably tedious. Like you
I found William on the whole to be very polite. His analysis on the other hand was often peculiar. You by contrast are neither polite nor insightful.
I have no desire to see you banned. You'd only come back as someone else. Can I not comment on your unpleasant conflation of vile crimes with Islam. If you can demonstrate Jimmy Savile was a closet Muslim you may have a point.
Lol! You endlessly ask the mods to ban, or make heavy hints in that direction
But if it pleases you to lie so blatantly to yourself, whatevs
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
With all due respect, you don’t get to decide whether my comments are “appropriate”. I’ll just ignore the rest of your guff. As usual
Your racist tropes are only a problem to the mods if they decide they might damage the site, clearly they don't see any jeopardy and that is fair enough. You have already had two likes for your reply to me, so clearly some posters are loving your conflation of particularly unpleasant crimes by asylum seekers with Islam. I would prefer that correlation was not made because I don't believe it to be true. I suspect others who feel the same have either left or post at a time before you stir.
What you want is a site made up of boring, mewling, intellectually mediocre centrist Dads like you, with no unpleasant right wing people to say uncomfortable things. Consequently, along with your likeminded dorks @IanB2 and @bondegezou you constantly and endlessly nudge, suggest and sometimes basically request the mods to ban me. Notice that I never do that to you, by the way
If you can broaden that tiny mind of yours, imagine if you succeeded. Imagine if you managed to ban me, forever, and those that think like me (@williamglenn is already gone). The site would be calm and quiet for a few days, and you’d congratulate yourselves, but then you’d realise that it was becoming seriously dull, and full of dreary centrist chat. And then you’d see it was endlessly getting worse and smaller as everyone drifted away, in apathy and indifference,, but by then it would be too late, and then the site would die
We know this, because it has already happened to Bluesky. The site is dying because it is dominated by the intolerant Woke and it turns out these people - you - are mulishly unimaginative and indefatigably tedious. Like you
Says the most tediously narrow minded poster here...
The mods should act, not because you have right wing views (blinkered and unthinking though they are), but because it is quite obvious you want to see some sort of mass violence and race war and are continually stirring and agitating and posting alarmist rubbish while trying to dance along the line beyond which you'd be gone.
Aaaaand, another call to ban me
I know I grossly humiliated you years ago, but you really should move on. Find a bar. Talk to a human. There must be one willing to engage with you, even as you tragically wander around Europe with a pet. Maybe do baby steps first. Try talking to homeless crippled people, they won’t be able to move away from you really quickly, unlike everyone else
I haven't asked for you to be banned. I just find it a shame you post such unpleasant material,
That is, the white cloud that Danny Kruger MP wishes to push out of publIC life and deny Government funding.
Yes. (Slightly less than 60 words).
“An ideology underpinned by the postmodernist notion that our understanding of reality is produced in the context of linguistic and cultural frameworks, that knowledge is a construct of power wielded oppressively through language, and therefore censorship and other authoritarian measures are necessary to reshape society.”
Thank-you. This is helpful as an example of a definition from the Right. The Liberty Fund is neoliberal-libertarian, so this is roughly from the interventionist US Right (say Dubya).
To my eye "ideology" is better than inventing a competitor religion as done by Maga, which is less rational.
The actual defintion is by Andrew Doyle, and the piece by Theodore Dalyrymple (see famous Teddies from the other day). He uses my analogy of a cloud as the concept of "woke", around which he perambulates.
Looking back at that definition with my lunch, this strikes me as simply true, and not a "postmodern notion":
"the postmodernist notion that our understanding of reality is produced in the context of linguistic and cultural frameworks
How on earth could you get an "understanding of reality" outside "linguistic and cultural frameworks"?
It's impossible to be alive and thinking without being in such frameworks.
In this Andrew Doyle is trying to imagine his own view as the "objective centre", for want of a better term. That claim is nonsense.
“ How on earth could you get an "understanding of reality" outside "linguistic and cultural frameworks"?”
According to various articles I’ve read, the idea is that existing "linguistic and cultural frameworks" are toxic and must be replaced, so that reality will be understood in the correct way.
See the emphasis on language - blacklists, latinx etc.
And that’s before we get to “Maths is racist and imperialist”
If there were different linguistic and cultural frameworks, then our understanding of reality would be different.
We can only describe the world using the discourse that is available to us.
Exactly - our understanding of reality is different.
There are different linguistic and cultural frameworks - for example each language is different in its concepts, for example the concept of "thinking in French, or Japanese, or Arabic", or language based humour, or literature. Ditto cultural frameworks.
And discourse is important precisely in part for that reason.
India informed the US it will not purchase F-35 stealth fighters, despite Trump’s offer during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Washington visit, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. India plans no further US arms purchases but is discussing steps like increasing imports of US liquefied gas, telecom equipment, and gold to ease trade tensions. The decision follows Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, calling India’s economy “dead” and criticizing its trade barriers. India is disappointed but hopes to continue trade talks. https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
Family bought car as surprise birthday present but did not insure it. Waitress could not insure car because she did not know it existed (and could not drive anyway).
Convicted under the Single Justice Procedure. Expect more on this because it also is used for TV licence cases, so allows rival media empires to take a pop at the BBC. Nonetheless, reform would seem popular and cheap so it is no surprise that governments show no interest.
How would reform be cheap? The current system is designed to process x00 cases a day spending seconds to 2 minutes on each case. So I can't see how reforming it would result in it being cheap..
Family bought car as surprise birthday present but did not insure it. Waitress could not insure car because she did not know it existed (and could not drive anyway).
Convicted under the Single Justice Procedure. Expect more on this because it also is used for TV licence cases, so allows rival media empires to take a pop at the BBC. Nonetheless, reform would seem popular and cheap so it is no surprise that governments show no interest.
Why would we get more?
The SJP has been in place for more than 10 years.
In EW it's used in 2/3 of cases in Magistrates Courts (AI).
Because the Single Justice Procedure leads to obvious injustices, because barristers and magistrates have called for reforms, and because media bosses can have a pop at the BBC.
Also from the article above - the employer really isn't that bright given the statement "She claimed that two workers have since started the process with the Home Office and are not illegally working, although this has not been confirmed."
A local Indian Restaurant to me was done twice within 12 months and lost its license.
Malmesburys suggestion has a lot of merit. It should be consider. Obviously it won’t be.
Strict liability (£1000 fine) for customers too.
It’s hardly the customers fault but if your aim is to destroy hospitality then crack on, that’s an insane suggestion.
You could go out for a couple of drinks in a couple of bars, have a meal, and end up 3 grand in debt through no fault of your own 😱
I made an edit above to reflect that point.
But ultimately, strict liability is the kind of thing that kills demand for illegal practices. It takes the enforcement burden away from the police, and means you don't have to have exceptionally complicated investigations.
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
With all due respect, you don’t get to decide whether my comments are “appropriate”. I’ll just ignore the rest of your guff. As usual
Your racist tropes are only a problem to the mods if they decide they might damage the site, clearly they don't see any jeopardy and that is fair enough. You have already had two likes for your reply to me, so clearly some posters are loving your conflation of particularly unpleasant crimes by asylum seekers with Islam. I would prefer that correlation was not made because I don't believe it to be true. I suspect others who feel the same have either left or post at a time before you stir.
What you want is a site made up of boring, mewling, intellectually mediocre centrist Dads like you, with no unpleasant right wing people to say uncomfortable things. Consequently, along with your likeminded dorks @IanB2 and @bondegezou you constantly and endlessly nudge, suggest and sometimes basically request the mods to ban me. Notice that I never do that to you, by the way
If you can broaden that tiny mind of yours, imagine if you succeeded. Imagine if you managed to ban me, forever, and those that think like me (@williamglenn is already gone). The site would be calm and quiet for a few days, and you’d congratulate yourselves, but then you’d realise that it was becoming seriously dull, and full of dreary centrist chat. And then you’d see it was endlessly getting worse and smaller as everyone drifted away, in apathy and indifference,, but by then it would be too late, and then the site would die
We know this, because it has already happened to Bluesky. The site is dying because it is dominated by the intolerant Woke and it turns out these people - you - are mulishly unimaginative and indefatigably tedious. Like you
I found William on the whole to be very polite. His analysis on the other hand was often peculiar. You by contrast are neither polite nor insightful.
I have no desire to see you banned. You'd only come back as someone else. Can I not comment on your unpleasant conflation of vile crimes with Islam. If you can demonstrate Jimmy Savile was a closet Muslim you may have a point.
Lol! You endlessly ask the mods to ban, or make heavy hints in that direction
But if it pleases you to lie so blatantly to yourself, whatevs
All of this mess starts with the laws of Subjudice and then spread out like tentacles. We need to revisit the Bill of Right which was the Settlement of the Crown.
I think most of the subjudice laws need to be repealed completely. As they are at the moment they can trump free speech and do, on a regular basis.
It will be ironic if the government's attempts to restrict the right of 14 yo lads to have a wank bring their whole stinking edifice of lawfare down but whatever, it will be a good thing if it falls.
I don't agree - there isn't a universal right for everyone to know everything about everything.
IF a matter is in the legal process, I think it perfectly reasonable it should be kept out of the public domain pending the outcome of the legal investigation. It may surprise you but the principle of "free speech" (which seems to mean different things to different people) doesn't trump the presumption of innocence before guilt or the right of any individual to a fair trial.
We're back to the old notion of the right to know versus the need to know.
I certainly accept once the legal process has been completed, we should be entitled to as much information as possible about what happened, who knew and what attempts (if any, I mean, "sources", that can mean anything) were made to suppress information and, if proven, whether any further legal action is justified.
We've seen only recently how rumour and misinformation can be used to agitate, incite and provoke so all this has to be handled carefully and just because something is written in a paper traditionally hostile to the Government and immigration doesn't mean we should accept it unconditionally.
Perhaps the people of Nuneaton have a right to know that asylum seekers from these HMOs are - allegedly - going out and kidnapping, strangling and raping 12 year old girls? So that they can protect their kids?
Or do they not have any rights, the people of Nuneaton?
... they do? It's all over the news?
Investigations like this are difficult and sensitive and they've managed to charge the first individual less than a week after the event, and then they did a press release immediately after they charged the second individual a couple of days later.
But we knew about the Liverpool guy within an hour or two. And the Mail explicitly says the police tried to keep it quiet for the sake of “community tensions”
Nice try. Fail
Whatever the operational decisions and ultimately the rights and wrongs of information filtration by Warwickshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Essex police forces, you have a specific agenda. You are not alone in promoting that agenda. Essentially it is an anti-immigration and anti Islam propaganda narrative.
Discussion is appropriate on here. The small boats are the biggest political issue of the moment, an issue the incumbent and previous Governments lost control of. However it is inappropriate for you to solely report these issues in terms of their (in your view) correlation with Islam.
I wonder how many others are put off the site by the sentiments you express? I know you have your fanbois here, but blimey PB isn't a nice place to be when you get your jackboots on.
With all due respect, you don’t get to decide whether my comments are “appropriate”. I’ll just ignore the rest of your guff. As usual
Your racist tropes are only a problem to the mods if they decide they might damage the site, clearly they don't see any jeopardy and that is fair enough. You have already had two likes for your reply to me, so clearly some posters are loving your conflation of particularly unpleasant crimes by asylum seekers with Islam. I would prefer that correlation was not made because I don't believe it to be true. I suspect others who feel the same have either left or post at a time before you stir.
What you want is a site made up of boring, mewling, intellectually mediocre centrist Dads like you, with no unpleasant right wing people to say uncomfortable things. Consequently, along with your likeminded dorks @IanB2 and @bondegezou you constantly and endlessly nudge, suggest and sometimes basically request the mods to ban me. Notice that I never do that to you, by the way
If you can broaden that tiny mind of yours, imagine if you succeeded. Imagine if you managed to ban me, forever, and those that think like me (@williamglenn is already gone). The site would be calm and quiet for a few days, and you’d congratulate yourselves, but then you’d realise that it was becoming seriously dull, and full of dreary centrist chat. And then you’d see it was endlessly getting worse and smaller as everyone drifted away, in apathy and indifference,, but by then it would be too late, and then the site would die
We know this, because it has already happened to Bluesky. The site is dying because it is dominated by the intolerant Woke and it turns out these people - you - are mulishly unimaginative and indefatigably tedious. Like you
I found William on the whole to be very polite. His analysis on the other hand was often peculiar. You by contrast are neither polite nor insightful.
I have no desire to see you banned. You'd only come back as someone else. Can I not comment on your unpleasant conflation of vile crimes with Islam. If you can demonstrate Jimmy Savile was a closet Muslim you may have a point.
Lol! You endlessly ask the mods to ban, or make heavy hints in that direction
But if it pleases you to lie so blatantly to yourself, whatevs
I suspect I have a better grasp of reality than any of your PB characters.
Family bought car as surprise birthday present but did not insure it. Waitress could not insure car because she did not know it existed (and could not drive anyway).
Convicted under the Single Justice Procedure. Expect more on this because it also is used for TV licence cases, so allows rival media empires to take a pop at the BBC. Nonetheless, reform would seem popular and cheap so it is no surprise that governments show no interest.
Does seems a case of being harshly treated however it appears she didn't respond to the letter saying they had a fine to pay which would have resolved the issue before going anywhere near a court and she plead guilty.
You never ever ignore communications like this. You respond straight away even if to query it / ask for more information, then there is a paper trail of you trying to resolve the matter.
The Standard (who owns it - is this a Murdoch thing like the Times wazzocking on about the monarch?) seems to have a bee in its bonnet. This is about a previous one (apparently there's a scandal):
An 82-year-old pensioner has been convicted of not paying car tax while he was in hospital having a toe amputated.
The OAP, who is in assisted living in Liverpool, was pursued through the criminal courts by the DVLA when the bill went unpaid last December.
In this case it went unpaid from Oct to December, then he was prosecuted in the Court.
I've fallen foul of forgetting to do SORN years ago, around the time when DVLA cocked up and had to withdraw millions of tickets (2007-8?) and there's a need for process reform, but I'm not sure why the Standard are obsessing.
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
I think it’s better
Starmer and Labour have been a dreadful disappointment, and they have made some horrendous political errors such as Gaza, WFA and the benefits fiasco, however for those of us not wearing their blue scarves too tightly around our necks, they are no worse and probably somewhat less negative than Sunak and considerably less chaotic than Truss and Johnson. Foreign policy on the whole has been viewed seriously and a marked improvement in a dangerous world.
Some policies have been very poorly thought through and the communications even more inept, but worse than what went before? Not yet anyway.
Gaza is one where Starmer has managed to offend everyone. To the point that if he recognises Palestine, the Jezzbolah won’t even give him credit. They will simply move to the next demand. The recognition of Hamas as the government of Gaza.
His U turn on Palestine has been welcomed by me, but I would agree with Jeremy Bowen, the U turn is just too late to receive any political benefit either here or in Palestine.
I don't believe there is any recognition of Hamas's role in the future of Palestine implicit in anything said by Starmer, Macron or Carney.
No, there is nothing about recognising Hamas in what the sane politicians are speaking of.
The angry Corbynistas, locally, are already saying it’s an outrage that the PLA will be given authority, by this, over Gaza. That Hamas is The Voice Of The People.
It is virtually certain that this will be a demand. Probably a faction of the Fruit & Nuts will demand that it appears in the platform.
If Canada wants to join the EU, absolutely they should do it - it's for them to decide.
But Canada isn't in Europe.
Hawaii isn't in America
The Falklands isn't in the British Isles.
But perhaps it should be. Maybe the remaining overseas territories should be represented in parliament. Tricky tax wise.
Suggested back in the '50s. The French do it, of course, which is probably why we don't.
We have always made our overseas territories into separate jurisdictions. Gibraltar isn't in the UK either. Not sure why but there are obvious legal benefits.
They allow dodgy Brits to do dodgy financial stuff without having to go fully abroad to do it?
See the Guardian's story on the boss of Yorkshire Water.
"Revealed: Yorkshire Water boss was paid extra £1.3m via offshore parent firm"
That appears quite shocking.
Ditto Mr Baroness Mone's Gibraltar slushtrust fund
Why is it shocking?
She had two jobs effectively and was paid separately for them.
India informed the US it will not purchase F-35 stealth fighters, despite Trump’s offer during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Washington visit, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. India plans no further US arms purchases but is discussing steps like increasing imports of US liquefied gas, telecom equipment, and gold to ease trade tensions. The decision follows Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, calling India’s economy “dead” and criticizing its trade barriers. India is disappointed but hopes to continue trade talks. https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
India informed the US it will not purchase F-35 stealth fighters, despite Trump’s offer during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Washington visit, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. India plans no further US arms purchases but is discussing steps like increasing imports of US liquefied gas, telecom equipment, and gold to ease trade tensions. The decision follows Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, calling India’s economy “dead” and criticizing its trade barriers. India is disappointed but hopes to continue trade talks. https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
Good.
We should do the same.
I don't think buying the Rafale would be very popular, but yes, pushback usually works better with Trump than the EU style semi-capitulation.
Also from the article above - the employer really isn't that bright given the statement "She claimed that two workers have since started the process with the Home Office and are not illegally working, although this has not been confirmed."
A local Indian Restaurant to me was done twice within 12 months and lost its license.
Malmesburys suggestion has a lot of merit. It should be consider. Obviously it won’t be.
Strict liability (£1000 fine) for customers too.
It’s hardly the customers fault but if your aim is to destroy hospitality then crack on, that’s an insane suggestion.
You could go out for a couple of drinks in a couple of bars, have a meal, and end up 3 grand in debt through no fault of your own 😱
I made an edit above to reflect that point.
But ultimately, strict liability is the kind of thing that kills demand for illegal practices. It takes the enforcement burden away from the police, and means you don't have to have exceptionally complicated investigations.
Strict liability for the employer would be fine.
But how is the customer supposed to know?
At the shout Achtung! Achtung! all the employees run out to form a parade line, holding up their papers for inspection. The customer takes a photo of each with their papers on their mobile.
Meanwhile the employees sing a rousing company song
Family bought car as surprise birthday present but did not insure it. Waitress could not insure car because she did not know it existed (and could not drive anyway).
Convicted under the Single Justice Procedure. Expect more on this because it also is used for TV licence cases, so allows rival media empires to take a pop at the BBC. Nonetheless, reform would seem popular and cheap so it is no surprise that governments show no interest.
The magistrate gave her a conditional discharge which is the appropriate punishment for a situation like this. “Go forth and sin no more”
Also from the article above - the employer really isn't that bright given the statement "She claimed that two workers have since started the process with the Home Office and are not illegally working, although this has not been confirmed."
A local Indian Restaurant to me was done twice within 12 months and lost its license.
Malmesburys suggestion has a lot of merit. It should be consider. Obviously it won’t be.
Strict liability (£1000 fine) for customers too.
It’s hardly the customers fault but if your aim is to destroy hospitality then crack on, that’s an insane suggestion.
You could go out for a couple of drinks in a couple of bars, have a meal, and end up 3 grand in debt through no fault of your own 😱
I made an edit above to reflect that point.
But ultimately, strict liability is the kind of thing that kills demand for illegal practices. It takes the enforcement burden away from the police, and means you don't have to have exceptionally complicated investigations.
Strict liability for the employer would be fine.
But how is the customer supposed to know?
At the shout Achtung! Achtung! all the employees run out to form a parade line, holding up their papers for inspection. The customer takes a photo of each with their papers on their mobile.
Meanwhile the employees sing a rousing company song
As you demonstrate making the customer liable is impossible - but I would be looking at allowing the fine to become a strict liability that can be transferred to the franchiser / lease owner / app provider in circumstances where it's clear (as with Deliveroo and co) that their labour usage is designed to facilitate looking the other way.
India informed the US it will not purchase F-35 stealth fighters, despite Trump’s offer during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Washington visit, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. India plans no further US arms purchases but is discussing steps like increasing imports of US liquefied gas, telecom equipment, and gold to ease trade tensions. The decision follows Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, calling India’s economy “dead” and criticizing its trade barriers. India is disappointed but hopes to continue trade talks. https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
Trump picks on the weak - or those he perceives as weak
The Indian economy is in grave trouble, in the medium term, despite the impressive growth of recent years
Why? Automation. So much of what India does, to make a buck - from cheap remote coding to call centres - is in the first line of industries liable to be robotised. And countries are beginning to react against Indian migrants, menacing all those remittances
It’s not obvious to me how India avoids a nasty crash
I am still genuinely surprised just how unpopular Starmer is so quickly. I don't know if it is the voice or what that rubs people up the wrong way. If you are in a union or work for the public sector, he isn't been bad for you. Those on low pay, at least for now the slow motion car crash hasn't occurred yet, you done ok.
His X account is now totally bonkers: resembles a malfunctioning chatbot from about 2017. Tinged with fascinating & increasing craziness
“For too long clouds have filled our skies with gloom. By using tractors and trained seagulls, I will bring back sunshine.
That’s my promise to angry picnickers”
How is that any different from:
“For too long, criminal people-smuggling gangs have got away with using social media to sell the false promise of safe passage to the UK.
Starmer has multiple issues. He is genuinely dislikeable - stiff, unfunny, censorious, prissy, not as smart as he thinks he is. Also hypocritical, venal and greedy
Add to that a total lack of political skill or charm, and personal political instincts (cf Chagos) entirely at odds with most British voters and you get the most unpopular prime minister in British history. He’s a disaster
Before the election we had a lot of people on here justifying voting Labour on the basis of how can they possibly be worse than Sunak/Hunt. I pointed out that things can always be worse - much worse.
So here we are.
I think it’s better
Your humour is very underrated on here.
Obviously it's shit, but it's shit in a powerful and necessary way. I sometimes wonder whether Sunak was an undercover superhero Governing so badly, mistiming the election so dreadfully and losing so catastrophically. It really upset Labour's plans. They were given the worst hand ever, with the weakest leader ever, and it's ruined them. Wrecked them, possibly for good. Gives me the warm fuzzies.
India informed the US it will not purchase F-35 stealth fighters, despite Trump’s offer during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Washington visit, Bloomberg reported, citing sources. India plans no further US arms purchases but is discussing steps like increasing imports of US liquefied gas, telecom equipment, and gold to ease trade tensions. The decision follows Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Indian goods, calling India’s economy “dead” and criticizing its trade barriers. India is disappointed but hopes to continue trade talks. https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
Good.
We should do the same.
I don't think buying the Rafale would be very popular, but yes, pushback usually works better with Trump than the EU style semi-capitulation.
I don't actually mind that interpretation because I don't really think we should buy F-35s.
Also from the article above - the employer really isn't that bright given the statement "She claimed that two workers have since started the process with the Home Office and are not illegally working, although this has not been confirmed."
A local Indian Restaurant to me was done twice within 12 months and lost its license.
Malmesburys suggestion has a lot of merit. It should be consider. Obviously it won’t be.
Strict liability (£1000 fine) for customers too.
It’s hardly the customers fault but if your aim is to destroy hospitality then crack on, that’s an insane suggestion.
You could go out for a couple of drinks in a couple of bars, have a meal, and end up 3 grand in debt through no fault of your own 😱
I made an edit above to reflect that point.
But ultimately, strict liability is the kind of thing that kills demand for illegal practices. It takes the enforcement burden away from the police, and means you don't have to have exceptionally complicated investigations.
Strict liability for the employer would be fine.
But how is the customer supposed to know?
At the shout Achtung! Achtung! all the employees run out to form a parade line, holding up their papers for inspection. The customer takes a photo of each with their papers on their mobile.
Meanwhile the employees sing a rousing company song
What happens to the customer who arrives 1 minute after the last inspection for a quick drink and leaves before the next one.
(I’m thinking of a charming Cornishman I knew called Mad Dog - he used to finish work, walk into the pub, slam down two double whiskies and be on the way home within 5 minutes)
Maybe there are still a few people around like me who sometimes buy a copy of the Guardian and the Telegraph at the same time to get different points of view.
Maybe there are still a few people around like me who sometimes buy a copy of the Guardian and the Telegraph at the same time to get different points of view.
You aren't the only one. I do. Although not sure about Observer going to Snail Media Group.
Maybe calling for others to be banned should automatically be a bannable offence. The site is becoming increasingly tedious.
I tend to agree that it should be against the forum rules.
Banning itself would ideally be for a specific breach of the rules rather than the accusation of 'skating close to' something or 'chanelling' someone. Williamglenn's spiky contributions were often stimulating and it's a bit less good without him.
Looks like England could win the series 3-1 despite probably having lost the majority of sessions over the 5 matches. Similar to the way it's possible to win a tennis match with well below 50% of points won.
Maybe there are still a few people around like me who sometimes buy a copy of the Guardian and the Telegraph at the same time to get different points of view.
"You can't change the world but you can change the facts When you change the facts you change points of view When you change points of view you may change a vote And when you change a vote, you may change the world"
Looks like England could win the series 3-1 despite probably having lost the majority of sessions over the 5 matches. Similar to the way it's possible to win a tennis match with well below 50% of points won.
The Oval could also get hit by an asteroid rendering the pitch unplayable.
Both individuals in that piece seem to have done some thinking about why they support various policies.
My father, when I was young, got the Times, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Economist and the Spectator. And got me to read them.
He believed that everyone is biased so that the only way to see the world is to read a range of opinions on the same thing.
Absolutely, at school every morning the Housemaster would drop in the newspapers. Times, Telegraph, FT, Guardian, indie, Mail, Sun and Mirror. Funnily enough the Sun was first to go, teenage boys and Page 3, then the mirror, then times, telegraph, mail, FT, guardian, Indie.
After breakfast they were dropped in the house library where everyone would generally hang around where there would be all the periodicals such as Economist, Spectator, New Statesman, Time and National Geographic.
Even to this day I read all the papers online regardless of political slant and obviously now it’s easier to also read the foreign press and other news sources. Never read the BBC news website for some reason, no active reason I can think of just never interested and I don’t watch any news on tv.
Maybe calling for others to be banned should automatically be a bannable offence. The site is becoming increasingly tedious.
I tend to agree that it should be against the forum rules.
Banning itself would ideally be for a specific breach of the rules rather than the accusation of 'skating close to' something or 'chanelling' someone. Williamglenn's spiky contributions were often stimulating and it's a bit less good without him.
I actually just checked and @williamglenn is no longer banned. However he shows no sign of returning, which is a real shame
That’s the problem with banning - esp for merely expressing unpopular opinions - if you do it you risk people shrugging in disgust and walking away forever. I know this to be true, as I myself have walked away forever at least five times
Malcolm Shaw KC, a leading lawyer, said that the recognition plan “would create a troublesome precedent and could well challenge and ultimately destabilise an international system founded upon a common understanding of what it is to be a state”.
The fresh legal opinion, seen by The Telegraph, was circulated to the Prime Minister, Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, and dozens of influential Labour MPs.
It was commissioned by Lord Mendelsohn, the Labour peer, in response to Sir Keir’s decision to recognise a State of Palestine in September unless Israel meets certain conditions.
Brook hits the ball like a bullet. No chance for the fielder only 5 yards away. India's bowlers looking very tired. Really surprised they have not bowled Jejeda yet. He always brings something different.
Also from the article above - the employer really isn't that bright given the statement "She claimed that two workers have since started the process with the Home Office and are not illegally working, although this has not been confirmed."
A local Indian Restaurant to me was done twice within 12 months and lost its license.
Malmesburys suggestion has a lot of merit. It should be consider. Obviously it won’t be.
Strict liability (£1000 fine) for customers too.
It’s hardly the customers fault but if your aim is to destroy hospitality then crack on, that’s an insane suggestion.
You could go out for a couple of drinks in a couple of bars, have a meal, and end up 3 grand in debt through no fault of your own 😱
I made an edit above to reflect that point.
But ultimately, strict liability is the kind of thing that kills demand for illegal practices. It takes the enforcement burden away from the police, and means you don't have to have exceptionally complicated investigations.
Strict liability for the employer would be fine.
But how is the customer supposed to know?
At the shout Achtung! Achtung! all the employees run out to form a parade line, holding up their papers for inspection. The customer takes a photo of each with their papers on their mobile.
Meanwhile the employees sing a rousing company song
As you demonstrate making the customer liable is impossible - but I would be looking at allowing the fine to become a strict liability that can be transferred to the franchiser / lease owner / app provider in circumstances where it's clear (as with Deliveroo and co) that their labour usage is designed to facilitate looking the other way.
That’s about closing the open door of contracting as a legal cut out.
Comments
Pic of the day, I don't see a chart in the most recent survey, but there was one in 2020 and rape has shown to be pretty flat in that time. Sexual assaults seemed to decrease until 2014 (though caveats that the methodology changed so hard to compare data) and increased since then (and post-2020 seem to have continued increasing) barring a dip during Covid.
I don't see 1.2% ever.
(via Walk/Ride GM)
The police are actually worsening community relations with their behaviour.
It'd be much better to be upfront about it all, or to reveal nothing until enquiries are concluded, and that way they'd maintain confidence and trust.
A two-tier approach is the worst of all worlds.
Talking about Brunel, there has recently been work (in both senses) on his (relatively) forgotten swing bridge in the shadow of the Clifton Bridge (or it would be if it weren't due south ...).
https://www.brunelsotherbridge.org.uk/
Some interesting papers in this but alas not (all?) open access.
https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/yhet20/92/1
I don't share the view that our domestic population are a bunch of barely restrained apes whose base sentiments need to be actively managed.
Don't all the water companies have a similar look at web of holding companies in order to bamboozle the regulator, and allow dividends to be paid without worrying about what the regulator might have to say ?
So here we are.
"the postmodernist notion that our understanding of reality is produced in the context of linguistic and cultural frameworks
How on earth could you get an "understanding of reality" outside "linguistic and cultural frameworks"?
It's impossible to be alive and thinking without being in such frameworks.
In this Andrew Doyle is trying to imagine his own view as the "objective centre", for want of a better term. That claim is nonsense.
It leads to a two-tier approach to community relations, polarisation, anger and radical politics.
Your ideology is utterly toxic.
Log-off, and spend the afternoon having a good hard think about it.
Every one gets tarred with the same brush before they get tarred and feathered. We would then see crowds of concerned citizens (or mobs depending on your viewpoint) outside these properties demanding the individuals be moved. In essence, it would be analogous to what happened in Ulster in the late 60s and early 70s or Ballymena earlier in the year.
Apart from upholding the law, the Police have the not inconsiderable task of maintaining public order - what you are proposing might be good for those advocating transparency but we both know there would be a public order implication just as there would have been if Northern Rock had been allowed to collapse.
Again, were back to the right to know versus the need to know and it's not an easy one to resolve.
According to various articles I’ve read, the idea is that existing "linguistic and cultural frameworks" are toxic and must be replaced, so that reality will be understood in the correct way.
See the emphasis on language - blacklists, latinx etc.
And that’s before we get to “Maths is racist and imperialist”
He’s done better this year.
She previously served as an adviser to David Cameron's Government
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/36128574/dragon-den-star-mbe-stripped-prison-sentence/
Julie Meyer, to save clicking the link.
Next year, in Wales, we could end up with the Faragistas and Plaid as the two biggest parties.
Doubtful if two ethno-nationalist parties, composed of angry white van and tractor drivers, is likely to improve the governance of the principality,
Is she related to Sir Anthony Meyer ?
He's added £60bn of extra spending each year to the deficit, threatening our solvency, snuffled out any growth, jacked up interest rates and gilt prices, upped taxes, increased small boats, given away British territory and interests in one-sided deals, failed to exert any meaningful British leadership internationally and failed to make any meaningful reforms domestically. And everyone either hates him or doesn't respect him.
I'm afraid I don't see any measure by which he's done better this year.
But I agree the wider party was pretty venal and almost ungovernable.
Some policies have been very poorly thought through and the communications even more inept, but worse than what went before? Not yet anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/aug/03/right-to-buy-england-fuelled-housing-crisis-cost-taxpayers-common-weath-report
There’s other stuff but I’m off for Sunday lunch in five so it will wait.
Our solvency wasn’t helped by your lot cutting NI twice. Totally reckless
Labour have not been great but their legacy from the Tories was a Shit sandwich without the bread.
What happened to interest rates thanks to Rishi firing up the printer ?
If you can broaden that tiny mind of yours, imagine if you succeeded. Imagine if you managed to ban me, forever, and those that think like me (@williamglenn is already gone). The site would be calm and quiet for a few days, and you’d congratulate yourselves, but then you’d realise that it was becoming seriously dull, and full of dreary centrist chat. And then you’d see it was endlessly getting worse and smaller as everyone drifted away, in apathy and indifference,, but by then it would be too late, and then the site would die
We know this, because it has already happened to Bluesky. The site is dying because it is dominated by the intolerant Woke and it turns out these people - you - are mulishly unimaginative and indefatigably tedious. Like you
No wonder no has heard of her. Seems to be another one of those billy bullshitters that managed to luck out during the early 2000s dot com bubble and lived on the back of it.
The mods should act, not because you have right wing views (blinkered and unthinking though they are), but because it is quite obvious you want to see some sort of mass violence and race war and are continually stirring and agitating and posting alarmist rubbish while trying to dance along the line beyond which you'd be gone.
I don't believe there is any recognition of Hamas's role in the future of Palestine implicit in anything said by Starmer, Macron or Carney.
The teenager was convicted in a fast-track Single Justice Procedure hearing conducted in private
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/teenager-convicted-car-insurance-birthday-surprise-single-justice-procedure-b1241182.html
Family bought car as surprise birthday present but did not insure it. Waitress could not insure car because she did not know it existed (and could not drive anyway).
Convicted under the Single Justice Procedure. Expect more on this because it also is used for TV licence cases, so allows rival media empires to take a pop at the BBC. Nonetheless, reform would seem popular and cheap so it is no surprise that governments show no interest.
I have no desire to see you banned. You'd only come back as someone else. Can I not comment on your unpleasant conflation of vile crimes with Islam. If you can demonstrate Jimmy Savile was a closet Muslim you may have a point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKqswYwjDx8 (12 minutes)
The SJP has been in place for more than 10 years.
In EW it's used in 2/3 of cases in Magistrates Courts (AI).
We can only describe the world using the discourse that is available to us.
You never ever ignore communications like this. You respond straight away even if to query it / ask for more information, then there is a paper trail of you trying to resolve the matter.
I know I grossly humiliated you years ago, but you really should move on. Find a bar. Talk to a human. There must be one willing to engage with you, even as you tragically wander around Europe with a pet. Maybe do baby steps first. Try talking to homeless crippled people, they won’t be able to move away from you really quickly, unlike everyone else
Yes, you should be banned, and the forum would be better without your trail of stinking slime.
But if it pleases you to lie so blatantly to yourself, whatevs
There are different linguistic and cultural frameworks - for example each language is different in its concepts, for example the concept of "thinking in French, or Japanese, or Arabic", or language based humour, or literature. Ditto cultural frameworks.
And discourse is important precisely in part for that reason.
https://x.com/polidemitolog/status/1951659256039743773
But how is the customer supposed to know?
An 82-year-old pensioner has been convicted of not paying car tax while he was in hospital having a toe amputated.
The OAP, who is in assisted living in Liverpool, was pursued through the criminal courts by the DVLA when the bill went unpaid last December.
When prosecuted in the scandal-hit Single Justice Procedure, a secretive fast-track court system, the octogenarian wrote in to explain his medical woes – even including a copy of a hospital treatment record.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/pensioner-car-tax-hospital-toe-amputated-single-justice-procedure-dvla-b1240203.html
In this case it went unpaid from Oct to December, then he was prosecuted in the Court.
I've fallen foul of forgetting to do SORN years ago, around the time when DVLA cocked up and had to withdraw millions of tickets (2007-8?) and there's a need for process reform, but I'm not sure why the Standard are obsessing.
https://www.standard.co.uk/topic/single-justice-procedure
Nah, still not happening...
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/aug/03/dining-across-the-divide-michael-bernard
What vote Reform or buy the Guardian?
The angry Corbynistas, locally, are already saying it’s an outrage that the PLA will be given authority, by this, over Gaza. That Hamas is The Voice Of The People.
It is virtually certain that this will be a demand. Probably a faction of the Fruit & Nuts will demand that it appears in the platform.
She had two jobs effectively and was paid separately for them.
We should do the same.
Eg the last day of the previous test…..
They must be feeding it crack
Meanwhile the employees sing a rousing company song
https://youtu.be/8JDkdc246QQ?si=F-0AWQJYQMFDmNX5
A new disclosure shows how corporations and individuals, including many in the crypto business, wrote big checks while seeking favor from the president.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/02/us/politics/donor-list-suggests-scale-of-trumps-pay-for-access-operation.html
Most corrupt US president ever.
My father, when I was young, got the Times, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Economist and the Spectator. And got me to read them.
He believed that everyone is biased so that the only way to see the world is to read a range of opinions on the same thing.
The Indian economy is in grave trouble, in the medium term, despite the impressive growth of recent years
Why? Automation. So much of what India does, to make a buck - from cheap remote coding to call centres - is in the first line of industries liable to be robotised. And countries are beginning to react against Indian migrants, menacing all those remittances
It’s not obvious to me how India avoids a nasty crash
Obviously it's shit, but it's shit in a powerful and necessary way. I sometimes wonder whether Sunak was an undercover superhero Governing so badly, mistiming the election so dreadfully and losing so catastrophically. It really upset Labour's plans. They were given the worst hand ever, with the weakest leader ever, and it's ruined them. Wrecked them, possibly for good. Gives me the warm fuzzies.
What happens to the customer who arrives 1 minute after the last inspection for a quick drink and leaves before the next one.
(I’m thinking of a charming Cornishman I knew called Mad Dog - he used to finish work, walk into the pub, slam down two double whiskies and be on the way home within 5 minutes)
The housing crisis is simple supply and demand. Demand has shot up, and construction has not.
If planning were abolished/greatly liberalised we would have far more houses than we do now, and they'd cost less.
Right to buy is neither here nor there. There simply isn't enough houses, who owns the houses is irrelevant.
Banning itself would ideally be for a specific breach of the rules rather than the accusation of 'skating close to' something or 'chanelling' someone. Williamglenn's spiky contributions were often stimulating and it's a bit less good without him.
When you change the facts you change points of view
When you change points of view you may change a vote
And when you change a vote, you may change the world"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0paToJYuZBk
Still not happening.
After breakfast they were dropped in the house library where everyone would generally hang around where there would be all the periodicals such as Economist, Spectator, New Statesman, Time and National Geographic.
Even to this day I read all the papers online regardless of political slant and obviously now it’s easier to also read the foreign press and other news sources. Never read the BBC news website for some reason, no active reason I can think of just never interested and I don’t watch any news on tv.
That’s the problem with banning - esp for merely expressing unpopular opinions - if you do it you risk people shrugging in disgust and walking away forever. I know this to be true, as I myself have walked away forever at least five times
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Mendelsohn,_Baron_Mendelsohn