Putin would have taken over all of Ukraine if I wasn't president, - Trump.
▪️"If the meeting with Putin ends badly, it will be quick. If it's a good meeting, we will achieve peace pretty soon. You will see it"; ▪️"On the rare earths offer to Putin: rare earths are very unimportant, I'm trying to save lives"; ▪️ "Putin wants to make a deal." https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1956061626903486813
The last line is true, but the deal he wants is with Trump, not Zelensky.
For Koreans aware that the Empire of Japan used the term "annexation" in the treaty forcibly signed in 1910 to colonize Korea, the concept of a "coalition" with Japan may sound uncomfortable.
The intensifying U.S. protectionist trade policies under the Donald Trump administration, however, have justified Korea's renewed push for economic integration with Japan, propelling discussions on a free trade agreement (FTA) between the two neighboring Northeast Asian countries...
Article seems a bit confused between the EU-like structure and an FTA. An FTA is hardly unthinkable:
My suggestion on digital ID would be that all MPs and members of the House of Lords adopt digital ID as a pilot scheme , allow the public access to all the information as to where they go and what they do, all live. Run the trial for a couple of years and see if the MPs and Peers find the technology intrusive. What do you think to that idea ?
The UK should just move to ID cards with the option of a digital ID if people prefer that . I don’t see why this seems to be so controversial as almost every other European country have them.
There are two things:
1) Philosophical - the relationship between the state and the citizen is different in the UK. The state doesn’t get to order us around without consent - they have no right to demand we identify ourselves (“papers please”)
2) Practical - Blair’s original proposal hung massive databases off the ID card and gave way too many people access to the information. It was a massive privacy and data security risk.
We’re already tracked to a certain degree by our phones . You can limit the data on the ID card to just what’s absolutely necessary and also what agencies can access it .
You are under no obligation to own a smartphone, or a car, or a property.
I think it’s an Anglosphere thing where the public seem to be really riled up by the idea of ID cards .
I'd rather have mass uncontrolled illegal migration than ID cards. That's how much I dislike the idea of them being introduced.
My suggestion on digital ID would be that all MPs and members of the House of Lords adopt digital ID as a pilot scheme , allow the public access to all the information as to where they go and what they do, all live. Run the trial for a couple of years and see if the MPs and Peers find the technology intrusive. What do you think to that idea ?
The UK should just move to ID cards with the option of a digital ID if people prefer that . I don’t see why this seems to be so controversial as almost every other European country have them.
There are two things:
1) Philosophical - the relationship between the state and the citizen is different in the UK. The state doesn’t get to order us around without consent - they have no right to demand we identify ourselves (“papers please”)
2) Practical - Blair’s original proposal hung massive databases off the ID card and gave way too many people access to the information. It was a massive privacy and data security risk.
We’re already tracked to a certain degree by our phones . You can limit the data on the ID card to just what’s absolutely necessary and also what agencies can access it .
You are under no obligation to own a smartphone, or a car, or a property.
I think it’s an Anglosphere thing where the public seem to be really riled up by the idea of ID cards .
I'd rather have mass uncontrolled illegal migration than ID cards. That's how much I dislike the idea of them being introduced.
I wouldn't.
A dislike of ID cards shows a fundamental misunderstanding between what an ID card by itself offers and the global databases that Governments seem to love.
Hint they've already got the database, it's just without the ID card you haven't picked up the fact..
My suggestion on digital ID would be that all MPs and members of the House of Lords adopt digital ID as a pilot scheme , allow the public access to all the information as to where they go and what they do, all live. Run the trial for a couple of years and see if the MPs and Peers find the technology intrusive. What do you think to that idea ?
The UK should just move to ID cards with the option of a digital ID if people prefer that . I don’t see why this seems to be so controversial as almost every other European country have them.
There are two things:
1) Philosophical - the relationship between the state and the citizen is different in the UK. The state doesn’t get to order us around without consent - they have no right to demand we identify ourselves (“papers please”)
2) Practical - Blair’s original proposal hung massive databases off the ID card and gave way too many people access to the information. It was a massive privacy and data security risk.
We’re already tracked to a certain degree by our phones . You can limit the data on the ID card to just what’s absolutely necessary and also what agencies can access it .
You are under no obligation to own a smartphone, or a car, or a property.
I think it’s an Anglosphere thing where the public seem to be really riled up by the idea of ID cards .
I'd rather have mass uncontrolled illegal migration than ID cards. That's how much I dislike the idea of them being introduced.
I wouldn't.
ID cards are absolutely not needed to do something about uncontrolled migration. It's yet another example of the state refusing to use the powers it has to solve a problem, and demanding more. We would end up with both.
My suggestion on digital ID would be that all MPs and members of the House of Lords adopt digital ID as a pilot scheme , allow the public access to all the information as to where they go and what they do, all live. Run the trial for a couple of years and see if the MPs and Peers find the technology intrusive. What do you think to that idea ?
The UK should just move to ID cards with the option of a digital ID if people prefer that . I don’t see why this seems to be so controversial as almost every other European country have them.
There are two things:
1) Philosophical - the relationship between the state and the citizen is different in the UK. The state doesn’t get to order us around without consent - they have no right to demand we identify ourselves (“papers please”)
2) Practical - Blair’s original proposal hung massive databases off the ID card and gave way too many people access to the information. It was a massive privacy and data security risk.
We’re already tracked to a certain degree by our phones . You can limit the data on the ID card to just what’s absolutely necessary and also what agencies can access it .
You are under no obligation to own a smartphone, or a car, or a property.
I think it’s an Anglosphere thing where the public seem to be really riled up by the idea of ID cards .
I'd rather have mass uncontrolled illegal migration than ID cards. That's how much I dislike the idea of them being introduced.
I wouldn't.
This insane hostility to ID utterly baffles me. If they're so dangerous how is it that democracy survives and flourishes in Europe.?
BREAKING: D.C. officials balk at Bondi's order claiming powers over D.C. police
A.G. Schwalb told D.C.'s police chief that Bondi's order — purporting to make the DEA administrator D.C.'s "Emergency Police Commissioner" — is "unlawful."
My suggestion on digital ID would be that all MPs and members of the House of Lords adopt digital ID as a pilot scheme , allow the public access to all the information as to where they go and what they do, all live. Run the trial for a couple of years and see if the MPs and Peers find the technology intrusive. What do you think to that idea ?
The UK should just move to ID cards with the option of a digital ID if people prefer that . I don’t see why this seems to be so controversial as almost every other European country have them.
There are two things:
1) Philosophical - the relationship between the state and the citizen is different in the UK. The state doesn’t get to order us around without consent - they have no right to demand we identify ourselves (“papers please”)
2) Practical - Blair’s original proposal hung massive databases off the ID card and gave way too many people access to the information. It was a massive privacy and data security risk.
We’re already tracked to a certain degree by our phones . You can limit the data on the ID card to just what’s absolutely necessary and also what agencies can access it .
You are under no obligation to own a smartphone, or a car, or a property.
I think it’s an Anglosphere thing where the public seem to be really riled up by the idea of ID cards .
I'd rather have mass uncontrolled illegal migration than ID cards. That's how much I dislike the idea of them being introduced.
I wouldn't.
This insane hostility to ID utterly baffles me. If they're so dangerous how is it that democracy survives and flourishes in Europe.?
I'd trust an ID card system run by Estonia way more than one run by our government.
Any ID card is going to end up becoming essential for regular activities, and will have way too much associated information which will be too readily accessible. And when it inevitably gets hacked it'll be a huge pain in the arse.
My suggestion on digital ID would be that all MPs and members of the House of Lords adopt digital ID as a pilot scheme , allow the public access to all the information as to where they go and what they do, all live. Run the trial for a couple of years and see if the MPs and Peers find the technology intrusive. What do you think to that idea ?
The UK should just move to ID cards with the option of a digital ID if people prefer that . I don’t see why this seems to be so controversial as almost every other European country have them.
There are two things:
1) Philosophical - the relationship between the state and the citizen is different in the UK. The state doesn’t get to order us around without consent - they have no right to demand we identify ourselves (“papers please”)
2) Practical - Blair’s original proposal hung massive databases off the ID card and gave way too many people access to the information. It was a massive privacy and data security risk.
We’re already tracked to a certain degree by our phones . You can limit the data on the ID card to just what’s absolutely necessary and also what agencies can access it .
You are under no obligation to own a smartphone, or a car, or a property.
I think it’s an Anglosphere thing where the public seem to be really riled up by the idea of ID cards .
I'd rather have mass uncontrolled illegal migration than ID cards. That's how much I dislike the idea of them being introduced.
I wouldn't.
This insane hostility to ID utterly baffles me. If they're so dangerous how is it that democracy survives and flourishes in Europe.?
I'd trust an ID card system run by Estonia way more than one run by our government.
Any ID card is going to end up becoming essential for regular activities, and will have way too much associated information which will be too readily accessible. And when it inevitably gets hacked it'll be a huge pain in the arse.
And good morning, everyone.
It's already accessible as I've pointed out. The issue is that don't see the trigger point where the people you are complaining about currently access it.
My suggestion on digital ID would be that all MPs and members of the House of Lords adopt digital ID as a pilot scheme , allow the public access to all the information as to where they go and what they do, all live. Run the trial for a couple of years and see if the MPs and Peers find the technology intrusive. What do you think to that idea ?
The UK should just move to ID cards with the option of a digital ID if people prefer that . I don’t see why this seems to be so controversial as almost every other European country have them.
There are two things:
1) Philosophical - the relationship between the state and the citizen is different in the UK. The state doesn’t get to order us around without consent - they have no right to demand we identify ourselves (“papers please”)
2) Practical - Blair’s original proposal hung massive databases off the ID card and gave way too many people access to the information. It was a massive privacy and data security risk.
We’re already tracked to a certain degree by our phones . You can limit the data on the ID card to just what’s absolutely necessary and also what agencies can access it .
You are under no obligation to own a smartphone, or a car, or a property.
I think it’s an Anglosphere thing where the public seem to be really riled up by the idea of ID cards .
I'd rather have mass uncontrolled illegal migration than ID cards. That's how much I dislike the idea of them being introduced.
I wouldn't.
ID cards are absolutely not needed to do something about uncontrolled migration. It's yet another example of the state refusing to use the powers it has to solve a problem, and demanding more. We would end up with both.
They don't solve migration - what they would remove is an excuse for employing illegal workers and with that one of the pulls for illegal migrants...
My suggestion on digital ID would be that all MPs and members of the House of Lords adopt digital ID as a pilot scheme , allow the public access to all the information as to where they go and what they do, all live. Run the trial for a couple of years and see if the MPs and Peers find the technology intrusive. What do you think to that idea ?
The UK should just move to ID cards with the option of a digital ID if people prefer that . I don’t see why this seems to be so controversial as almost every other European country have them.
There are two things:
1) Philosophical - the relationship between the state and the citizen is different in the UK. The state doesn’t get to order us around without consent - they have no right to demand we identify ourselves (“papers please”)
2) Practical - Blair’s original proposal hung massive databases off the ID card and gave way too many people access to the information. It was a massive privacy and data security risk.
We’re already tracked to a certain degree by our phones . You can limit the data on the ID card to just what’s absolutely necessary and also what agencies can access it .
You are under no obligation to own a smartphone, or a car, or a property.
I think it’s an Anglosphere thing where the public seem to be really riled up by the idea of ID cards .
I'd rather have mass uncontrolled illegal migration than ID cards. That's how much I dislike the idea of them being introduced.
I wouldn't.
This insane hostility to ID utterly baffles me. If they're so dangerous how is it that democracy survives and flourishes in Europe.?
Your reference to Europe contains the clue, since there, you can be stopped and asked for "your papers, please?", and in many places it's an offence if you don't have them. Here, going about your lawful business, there is no such requirement.
Once the Referendum was lost and Cameron walked, it was the turn of those in the Conservative side who had never wanted the Coalition to take their revenge and Osborne was unceremoniously sacked by Theresa May. That was the end of his political career and a tenure as Editor of the Evening Standard wasn't a great success.
I hope that one day we learn what really happened behind the scenes; the way in which May unceremoniously destroyed Osborne and salted the earth so he couldn't return was out of character for her and not consistent with any ideological allegiances. He was still very young for a chancellor and had a lot more to offer the party and the country.
There must've been something 'personal' behind it all. Some irrational, pathological hatred somewhere in there, for reasons we don't yet know.
The snotty little shit would have been real nasty to her previously and she did not forget. She did the country one favour.
Governor Newsom Press Office @GovPressOffice BEYOND THE BEAUTIFUL, “PERFECT MAPS” — DONALD J. TRUMP HAS MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS. SOON, I — GAVIN C. NEWSOM — WILL BE SHARING RECORDS THAT SHOULD CONCERN HIM.
I DIDN’T WANT TO RELEASE THEM — OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (NOT THE PRESIDENT) — BUT MIKE “LITTLE MAN” JOHNSON’S HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE HAS REQUESTED THEM!!! WHOOPS.
WON’T BE PRETTY FOR DONNIE J. MANY ARE SAYING IT COULD BE THE FINAL NAIL IN HIS LONG CAREER OF LYING. THIS AND THE MAPS. “IT’S OVER.” THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. — GCN
either he has gone insane, or he thinks he's funny.
If the latter, there is an argument that he's still insane. imitating the posts of somebody who clearly has quite advanced dementia but doing them even worse merely looks stupid.
It is and it’s just the beginning. We are entering a new golden age of scientific advance
Reasons to be Cheerful, part 3
Summer, Buddy Holly The working folly Jump back in the alley and nanny goats
In the wilds of Borneo And the vineyards of Bordeaux Eskimo, Arapaho Move their bodies, to and fro
Some bellend with pink hair, they them pronouns, a nose ring and a Palestine flag in their bio would flag these lyrics up as being cultural appropriation if this was released today.
Just wait until they hear “Spasticus Autisticus ”by him.
I refrained from mentioning it here given I’ve used the term ‘spacker’ here before in a jocular context
yes changed days , was just a normal word many moons ago
This bombast is likely to shock some of my liberal London friends who’ve frequently told me, especially during the pandemic, how lucky I was to have such an an earnest, down-to-earth leader in charge. They, of course, were subject to the whims of the then prime minister Boris Johnson, who could have been replaced with three ferrets in a sack and the only change would have been a slight increase in decisiveness and gravitas, so, to them, Sturgeon seemed a paragon of sober governance, treating Scotland to almost nightly presidential-style podium appearances in which she delivered admonitions with an appropriately dour countenance.
Her English fans can’t be expected to know about every single clusterfuck over which the supposedly competent Sturgeon presided, and they certainly won’t find out about them from Frankly.
Pity she had not been FM rather than the losers we have had since Salmond left. A bigger set of duds you could not have found even rummaging in Labour's bin.
Putin would have taken over all of Ukraine if I wasn't president, - Trump.
▪️"If the meeting with Putin ends badly, it will be quick. If it's a good meeting, we will achieve peace pretty soon. You will see it"; ▪️"On the rare earths offer to Putin: rare earths are very unimportant, I'm trying to save lives"; ▪️ "Putin wants to make a deal." https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1956061626903486813
The last line is true, but the deal he wants is with Trump, not Zelensky.
He also said US had given Ukraine 350B compared to Europe's 100B, the man does not even reach MORON.
My suggestion on digital ID would be that all MPs and members of the House of Lords adopt digital ID as a pilot scheme , allow the public access to all the information as to where they go and what they do, all live. Run the trial for a couple of years and see if the MPs and Peers find the technology intrusive. What do you think to that idea ?
The UK should just move to ID cards with the option of a digital ID if people prefer that . I don’t see why this seems to be so controversial as almost every other European country have them.
There are two things:
1) Philosophical - the relationship between the state and the citizen is different in the UK. The state doesn’t get to order us around without consent - they have no right to demand we identify ourselves (“papers please”)
2) Practical - Blair’s original proposal hung massive databases off the ID card and gave way too many people access to the information. It was a massive privacy and data security risk.
We’re already tracked to a certain degree by our phones . You can limit the data on the ID card to just what’s absolutely necessary and also what agencies can access it .
You are under no obligation to own a smartphone, or a car, or a property.
I think it’s an Anglosphere thing where the public seem to be really riled up by the idea of ID cards .
I'd rather have mass uncontrolled illegal migration than ID cards. That's how much I dislike the idea of them being introduced.
I wouldn't.
This insane hostility to ID utterly baffles me. If they're so dangerous how is it that democracy survives and flourishes in Europe.?
The problem is the stupid database stuff they want to do - link everything together and allow everyone to access it. Without proper security or segmentation.
So in the original New Labour scheme, people hired by the council to investigate fly tipping could see your NHS data.
It was so dangerous that they included a separate system for “Important People”. Whose data would require a warrant to access.
Trying to tie all the government data together like this would also be a vast project costing many billions. Given the complexity, and past history, it will go over budget then fail badly. Leaving a half completed, very poorly designed system.
There is a weird clique in the Home Office that believes that Minority Report was an ideal state. They attach this rubbish to each ID card proposal.
In Europe this would be illegal - massive breach of GDPR.
My suggestion on digital ID would be that all MPs and members of the House of Lords adopt digital ID as a pilot scheme , allow the public access to all the information as to where they go and what they do, all live. Run the trial for a couple of years and see if the MPs and Peers find the technology intrusive. What do you think to that idea ?
The UK should just move to ID cards with the option of a digital ID if people prefer that . I don’t see why this seems to be so controversial as almost every other European country have them.
There are two things:
1) Philosophical - the relationship between the state and the citizen is different in the UK. The state doesn’t get to order us around without consent - they have no right to demand we identify ourselves (“papers please”)
2) Practical - Blair’s original proposal hung massive databases off the ID card and gave way too many people access to the information. It was a massive privacy and data security risk.
We’re already tracked to a certain degree by our phones . You can limit the data on the ID card to just what’s absolutely necessary and also what agencies can access it .
You are under no obligation to own a smartphone, or a car, or a property.
I think it’s an Anglosphere thing where the public seem to be really riled up by the idea of ID cards .
I'd rather have mass uncontrolled illegal migration than ID cards. That's how much I dislike the idea of them being introduced.
I wouldn't.
This insane hostility to ID utterly baffles me. If they're so dangerous how is it that democracy survives and flourishes in Europe.?
The problem is the stupid database stuff they want to do - link everything together and allow everyone to access it. Without proper security or segmentation.
So in the original New Labour scheme, people hired by the council to investigate fly tipping could see your NHS data.
It was so dangerous that they included a separate system for “Important People”. Whose data would require a warrant to access.
Trying to tie all the government data together like this would also be a vast project costing many billions. Given the complexity, and past history, it will go over budget then fail badly. Leaving a half completed, very poorly designed system.
There is a weird clique in the Home Office that believes that Minority Report was an ideal state. They attach this rubbish to each ID card proposal.
In Europe this would be illegal - massive breach of GDPR.
The MPs voting to exempt themselves from much of the legislation that applied to everyone else, should have been the reddest of red flags for anyone still unsure just how bad that proposal was going to be in practice.
I just saw the place where Franz Ferdinand was shot.
Terrible to think of all the suffering that bullet unleashed, including the damage to our nation and Empire following our disastrous decision to intervene (though it achieved the almost impossible in shutting the Irish up for eighteen months).
It would be nice to think mankind has learned it lessons, but looking at the world now clearly lots haven't.
And of course people are amazing at taking different, sometimes opposite, lessons from the same event.
The British Empire reached its territorial zenith after WW1.
Nazi Germany peaked in about October 1942 but it’s fate was sealed by then
"The British built the most successful, advanced, and sophisticated civilization in history and then just decided to light it all on fire for no particular reason.
I once stayed in a very odd hotel in Germany that had the shower slap bang in the middle of the bedroom in an enclosed glass box raised up on a small platform, with the toilet and hand basin. Now before people get funny ideas it was the sort of hotel SeanT would enjoy, it was a boring business hotel in every other regard. Why there wasn't a partition wall and a traditional bathroom in what was on the large floor plan for a hotel room i.e. not a suite, I have no idea.
Brilliant! This is a thread I can really lean into! In no particular order...
Boutique hotel in B A being newly refurbed, I snuck into the new master suite to grab a photo. By the patio doors to the terrace was the bathroom suite, half-height glass so you could look out from the throne, on the outside of the bathroom partition wall was a lone urinal.
Business hotel in Vietnam, glass walled bath and wet room in the centre of the room, toilet was seperate in a discreet corner with glass door and a phone. As a friend said "so you can ring down for more bog roll".
Hotel in Canada, double bedroom with large spa bath afterthought(?). Standard layout but the bathroom partition had been partly removed for the bath to extend into the room rendering no part of the bathroom private.
Honourable mentions
Hotel bar in Finland, gents toilet. Urinals on the wall and in splendid, completely public, isolation in the centre of the room a freestanding toilet.
Restaurant gents. Kz, a double cubicle, one door and a small half partition separating two toilets. Decorated in a very red tartan.
My suggestion on digital ID would be that all MPs and members of the House of Lords adopt digital ID as a pilot scheme , allow the public access to all the information as to where they go and what they do, all live. Run the trial for a couple of years and see if the MPs and Peers find the technology intrusive. What do you think to that idea ?
The UK should just move to ID cards with the option of a digital ID if people prefer that . I don’t see why this seems to be so controversial as almost every other European country have them.
There are two things:
1) Philosophical - the relationship between the state and the citizen is different in the UK. The state doesn’t get to order us around without consent - they have no right to demand we identify ourselves (“papers please”)
2) Practical - Blair’s original proposal hung massive databases off the ID card and gave way too many people access to the information. It was a massive privacy and data security risk.
We’re already tracked to a certain degree by our phones . You can limit the data on the ID card to just what’s absolutely necessary and also what agencies can access it .
You are under no obligation to own a smartphone, or a car, or a property.
I think it’s an Anglosphere thing where the public seem to be really riled up by the idea of ID cards .
I'd rather have mass uncontrolled illegal migration than ID cards. That's how much I dislike the idea of them being introduced.
I wouldn't.
This insane hostility to ID utterly baffles me. If they're so dangerous how is it that democracy survives and flourishes in Europe.?
The obvious riposte is that it frequently doesn't.
My objection to id cards is that it inverts the relationship between citizen and state. I do not serve it, it serves me. There is no war or other reason to invert this relationship. I have responsibilities towards the state which I try conscientiously to discharge but none of them require an ID card.
Comments
Putin would have taken over all of Ukraine if I wasn't president, - Trump.
▪️"If the meeting with Putin ends badly, it will be quick. If it's a good meeting, we will achieve peace pretty soon. You will see it";
▪️"On the rare earths offer to Putin: rare earths are very unimportant, I'm trying to save lives";
▪️ "Putin wants to make a deal."
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1956061626903486813
The last line is true, but the deal he wants is with Trump, not Zelensky.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China–Japan–South_Korea_Free_Trade_Agreement
Though I'm surprised they don't do it bilaterally without China to begin with.
Hint they've already got the database, it's just without the ID card you haven't picked up the fact..
BREAKING: D.C. officials balk at Bondi's order claiming powers over D.C. police
A.G. Schwalb told D.C.'s police chief that Bondi's order — purporting to make the DEA administrator D.C.'s "Emergency Police Commissioner" — is "unlawful."
Overnight, at Law Dork —>
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lwg4rzgwrs24
Any ID card is going to end up becoming essential for regular activities, and will have way too much associated information which will be too readily accessible. And when it inevitably gets hacked it'll be a huge pain in the arse.
And good morning, everyone.
NEW THREAD
So in the original New Labour scheme, people hired by the council to investigate fly tipping could see your NHS data.
It was so dangerous that they included a separate system for “Important People”. Whose data would require a warrant to access.
Trying to tie all the government data together like this would also be a vast project costing many billions. Given the complexity, and past history, it will go over budget then fail badly. Leaving a half completed, very poorly designed system.
There is a weird clique in the Home Office that believes that Minority Report was an ideal state. They attach this rubbish to each ID card proposal.
In Europe this would be illegal - massive breach of GDPR.
I can't decide if he has discovered irony, or is just a putz. US applications for UK citizenship are at an all time high.
In no particular order...
Boutique hotel in B A being newly refurbed, I snuck into the new master suite to grab a photo. By the patio doors to the terrace was the bathroom suite, half-height glass so you could look out from the throne, on the outside of the bathroom partition wall was a lone urinal.
Business hotel in Vietnam, glass walled bath and wet room in the centre of the room, toilet was seperate in a discreet corner with glass door and a phone. As a friend said "so you can ring down for more bog roll".
Hotel in Canada, double bedroom with large spa bath afterthought(?). Standard layout but the bathroom partition had been partly removed for the bath to extend into the room rendering no part of the bathroom private.
Honourable mentions
Hotel bar in Finland, gents toilet. Urinals on the wall and in splendid, completely public, isolation in the centre of the room a freestanding toilet.
Restaurant gents. Kz, a double cubicle, one door and a small half partition separating two toilets. Decorated in a very red tartan.
My objection to id cards is that it inverts the relationship between citizen and state. I do not serve it, it serves me. There is no war or other reason to invert this relationship. I have responsibilities towards the state which I try conscientiously to discharge but none of them require an ID card.