Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I’m writing a piece on this theme. THE ASTONISHING CHEAPNESS OF LOVELY OLD THINGS
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I’m writing a piece on this theme. THE ASTONISHING CHEAPNESS OF LOVELY OLD THINGS
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
It's variation of why people nailed hardboard across Edwardian fireplaces in the 60s and 70s. Not fashionable.
No, I think the demise of Wedgwood crockery is more like brown furniture. It is not about fashion so much as practicality. Homes are smaller, people no longer have the space, and this is aggravated by the march of technology in just the last ten or 20 years, so plates need to be dishwasher-safe and furniture needs space for screens and holes for cables.
LG had a rollable TV that could auto-hide itself. Ludicrously expensive - but if someone ever gets that kind of thing down into the low four digit bracket it'll do wonders for home decor.
Most Grand Designs houses, if they have a TV at all, have ones that pop up and down out of a piece of furniture. More seriously as screens can show anything, is there a market for a wall hung TV that shows family photos, great art etc when not in use as a TV? Or even just chameleon's into the wall?
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
SCOTUS can do whatever they like. Suppose Trump was on the ballot (SCOTUS ruled that states had to list him even if they think he's ineligible, they already decided this previously over the insurrection issue) and he won the election. He is the choice of the voters, and he's in charge of the army. If he was ineligible to be president, it would be up to his electors who they chose, and they would choose some other Republican. SCOTUS rules that he's the legitimate president. What specifically happens that's going to stop him staying on? Is there going to be a revolution demanding that SCOTUS be ignored and some other Trump-friendly Republican installed?
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I’m writing a piece on this theme. THE ASTONISHING CHEAPNESS OF LOVELY OLD THINGS
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I’m writing a piece on this theme. THE ASTONISHING CHEAPNESS OF LOVELY OLD THINGS
Are we going to have to wait until October or November every year of this parliament wondering how she's going to make our shit sandwich even bigger?
The uncertainty it drives into the economy and investment for months on end is criminal. And hurts UK Plc.
This is a key point - investment has dried up. To be fair to Reeves it isn't just her, it dried up before Labour took over. And its in every industry. It's been fascinating watching north sea industry leaders aghast at "drill baby drill" - that is the opposite of what they want. Planned, deliverable, profitable investment over a long period of time, with stable politics giving a platform they trust putting money into.
This is crazy. The UK economy has stalled completely, and the never ending shit show cycle makes it worse.
You're an investor. The UK has had 6 Prime Ministers and 8 Chancellors in 10 years. With wild policy swings in that time. Sometimes week to week. Why would you invest here? We need stability. Leaving Reeves in place brings stability to the ver changing cycle but in this case it is stability as the ship sinks. She needs to go.
£150bn of US AI investment announced last week and £2bn for the new Gatwick runway yesterday. Not sure its true to say that investment has dried up. The lack of new build housing is seriously disappointing though.
AI has major energy requirements to the extent I can see the US being happy to dump those on us.
So where is the energy capacity coming from to supply that £150bn of power hungry GPUs
Add high electricity costs to the list of reasons to explain Labour's crushing defeat at GE2029.
Crushing defeat to whom?
The Lib Dems if they can find a Macron, otherwise Reform.
Depends on tactical voting, 30% for Reform is certainly not enough to win a majority if LD, Green and Labour voters tactically vote against Farage
Tactical voting on the centre left won't work if Labour remain as popular as they are now.
Your bunch need to get out there and blame Farage for assisting your lot to break everything. And to call out his links to Trump and his gushing appraisal of Putin.
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
It's variation of why people nailed hardboard across Edwardian fireplaces in the 60s and 70s. Not fashionable.
No, I think the demise of Wedgwood crockery is more like brown furniture. It is not about fashion so much as practicality. Homes are smaller, people no longer have the space, and this is aggravated by the march of technology in just the last ten or 20 years, so plates need to be dishwasher-safe and furniture needs space for screens and holes for cables.
LG had a rollable TV that could auto-hide itself. Ludicrously expensive - but if someone ever gets that kind of thing down into the low four digit bracket it'll do wonders for home decor.
Most Grand Designs houses, if they have a TV at all, have ones that pop up and down out of a piece of furniture. More seriously as screens can show anything, is there a market for a wall hung TV that shows family photos, great art etc when not in use as a TV? Or even just chameleon's into the wall?
I often use ours to display the scene from one of the webcams on either the Keighley & Worth Valley or East Lancs railways.
Watching the comings and goings across the Ramsbottom level crossing can be therapeutic.
That sounds nice. Our new upstairs lounge looks over fields of horses and sheep. Its lovely. But image a wall that could show any view you wanted - the beach at Croyde, the mountains around Wasdale Head, Everest from 70 miles away etc - surely this once sci fi idea is getting really close?
Just had letter asking for repayment of £400 approx to DWP which relates to dad's state pension which they were slow to stop after his death. He died in February - 7 months ago! Probate was granted May and cash in estate already distributed!
Must include in my 'What if I die" notes something about stopping OAP (etc) PDQ.
There's a 'tell-us-once' facility but OAP/benefits payments will stop when the office gets round to stopping it. You (or rather your executors) need to monitor the incoming payments and ring-fence them for return.
I am surprised now our resident autism expert is up that we have had no commentary on Donald Trump having announced he has discovered the cause of autism. Paracetamol and Tylenol consumption apparently. I wonder if intravenous bleach delivery is the cure like it was for COVID according to Dr Trump.
Isn't this a classic correlation-not-causation thing?
(I haven't looked at the research but) yes you can well imagine confounders such as maternal health conditions or stress that could potentially correlate with both autism and paracetamol use. Don't control for the confounder and you get a spurious correlation between autism and paracetamol.
The actual summary from the Harvard School of Public Health suggests there’s “evidence of an association” but that more research is required.
I am surprised now our resident autism expert is up that we have had no commentary on Donald Trump having announced he has discovered the cause of autism. Paracetamol and Tylenol consumption apparently. I wonder if intravenous bleach delivery is the cure like it was for COVID according to Dr Trump.
I've not looked at any of the research on leucovorin or paracetamol. I'd simply note that it's laughably easy to make a systematic review say what you want it to say if you're so inclined. Reputable ones, Cochrane etc, will likely be well done, but for random ones a little tweaking of inclusion criteria or taking advantage of subjective quality assessment tools would enable you to conclude almost anything. A case in point is the various reviews around transgender interventions for children. You can get whatever answer you like by picking your studies.
Basically unprecedented for the FDA, off its own bat (ie at the behest of RFK) to reintroduce a drug for which the NDA was withdrawn by the manufacturer (in this case GSK).
Variously described as "bizarre" and "bonkers" by some in the industry.
Oh, and.. By the way, iHerb, a company that “Dr Oz” served as a “global advisor” for and still owns a major chunk of equity in, is the largest seller of Folinic Acid in the US.
I am surprised now our resident autism expert is up that we have had no commentary on Donald Trump having announced he has discovered the cause of autism. Paracetamol and Tylenol consumption apparently. I wonder if intravenous bleach delivery is the cure like it was for COVID according to Dr Trump.
Isn't this a classic correlation-not-causation thing?
(I haven't looked at the research but) yes you can well imagine confounders such as maternal health conditions or stress that could potentially correlate with both autism and paracetamol use. Don't control for the confounder and you get a spurious correlation between autism and paracetamol.
The actual summary from the Harvard School of Public Health suggests there’s “evidence of an association” but that more research is required.
Sadly, everyone’s reaction appears to be purely based on US politics.
An association, yes. Not the same as causation, although that could be the case. The review's dos-response relationship is interesting, but not conclusive - you could also get that with a confounder that has dose-response relationships with autism and paracetamol use. An obvious example would be that there's something during pregnancy that associates with both autism and pain (and so paracetamol use).
The FDA guidance, for what it's worth, seems reasonable. Trump's claims, less so. It's an area worth researching, as midwives used to say that paracetamol was safe as it didn't cross the placenta, which is now known not to be true.
ETA: Interesting to see Kennedy's take on this - if autism is caused by paracetamol during pregnancy then does that mean that it's not caused by MMR at one year any more?
I am surprised now our resident autism expert is up that we have had no commentary on Donald Trump having announced he has discovered the cause of autism. Paracetamol and Tylenol consumption apparently. I wonder if intravenous bleach delivery is the cure like it was for COVID according to Dr Trump.
Isn't this a classic correlation-not-causation thing?
(I haven't looked at the research but) yes you can well imagine confounders such as maternal health conditions or stress that could potentially correlate with both autism and paracetamol use. Don't control for the confounder and you get a spurious correlation between autism and paracetamol.
Even if you accept the new review study (of old data), the correlation is pretty weak. (And it looks a bit dodgy into the bargain.)
It certainly wouldn't even begin to account for an autism "epidemic", as the grifter Kennedy implies.
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
It's variation of why people nailed hardboard across Edwardian fireplaces in the 60s and 70s. Not fashionable.
No, I think the demise of Wedgwood crockery is more like brown furniture. It is not about fashion so much as practicality. Homes are smaller, people no longer have the space, and this is aggravated by the march of technology in just the last ten or 20 years, so plates need to be dishwasher-safe and furniture needs space for screens and holes for cables.
LG had a rollable TV that could auto-hide itself. Ludicrously expensive - but if someone ever gets that kind of thing down into the low four digit bracket it'll do wonders for home decor.
Most Grand Designs houses, if they have a TV at all, have ones that pop up and down out of a piece of furniture. More seriously as screens can show anything, is there a market for a wall hung TV that shows family photos, great art etc when not in use as a TV? Or even just chameleon's into the wall?
I often use ours to display the scene from one of the webcams on either the Keighley & Worth Valley or East Lancs railways.
Watching the comings and goings across the Ramsbottom level crossing can be therapeutic.
That sounds nice. Our new upstairs lounge looks over fields of horses and sheep. Its lovely. But image a wall that could show any view you wanted - the beach at Croyde, the mountains around Wasdale Head, Everest from 70 miles away etc - surely this once sci fi idea is getting really close?
There are plenty of webcams out there you can stream, right now.
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I’m writing a piece on this theme. THE ASTONISHING CHEAPNESS OF LOVELY OLD THINGS
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I’m writing a piece on this theme. THE ASTONISHING CHEAPNESS OF LOVELY OLD THINGS
“Higher taxes and the sting from US tariffs are set to restrain UK growth, according to forecasters at the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with inflation soaring above all other countries other than the US.
The OECD’s latest update on the state of the global economy said the UK’s “tighter fiscal stance” means growth will hit one per cent next year.
This is an unchanged prediction from its last forecast although it upgraded its UK growth outlook for 2025 from 1.3 per cent to 1.4 per cent.
The OECD’s forecasts are closely watched by City economists and government officials as a key indicator of how the UK economy compares with the world’s most dominant economies, with its figures likely to set the tone on growth and inflation ahead of the Budget.
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
It's variation of why people nailed hardboard across Edwardian fireplaces in the 60s and 70s. Not fashionable.
No, I think the demise of Wedgwood crockery is more like brown furniture. It is not about fashion so much as practicality. Homes are smaller, people no longer have the space, and this is aggravated by the march of technology in just the last ten or 20 years, so plates need to be dishwasher-safe and furniture needs space for screens and holes for cables.
LG had a rollable TV that could auto-hide itself. Ludicrously expensive - but if someone ever gets that kind of thing down into the low four digit bracket it'll do wonders for home decor.
Most Grand Designs houses, if they have a TV at all, have ones that pop up and down out of a piece of furniture. More seriously as screens can show anything, is there a market for a wall hung TV that shows family photos, great art etc when not in use as a TV? Or even just chameleon's into the wall?
I often use ours to display the scene from one of the webcams on either the Keighley & Worth Valley or East Lancs railways.
Watching the comings and goings across the Ramsbottom level crossing can be therapeutic.
That sounds nice. Our new upstairs lounge looks over fields of horses and sheep. Its lovely. But image a wall that could show any view you wanted - the beach at Croyde, the mountains around Wasdale Head, Everest from 70 miles away etc - surely this once sci fi idea is getting really close?
It was in place in an Exeter shopping centre years ago. They had a multi-screen display that covered the entire shop front & showed a fantastic beach somewhere hot.
I am surprised now our resident autism expert is up that we have had no commentary on Donald Trump having announced he has discovered the cause of autism. Paracetamol and Tylenol consumption apparently. I wonder if intravenous bleach delivery is the cure like it was for COVID according to Dr Trump.
Isn't this a classic correlation-not-causation thing?
(I haven't looked at the research but) yes you can well imagine confounders such as maternal health conditions or stress that could potentially correlate with both autism and paracetamol use. Don't control for the confounder and you get a spurious correlation between autism and paracetamol.
The actual summary from the Harvard School of Public Health suggests there’s “evidence of an association” but that more research is required.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
“Higher taxes and the sting from US tariffs are set to restrain UK growth, according to forecasters at the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with inflation soaring above all other countries other than the US.
The OECD’s latest update on the state of the global economy said the UK’s “tighter fiscal stance” means growth will hit one per cent next year.
This is an unchanged prediction from its last forecast although it upgraded its UK growth outlook for 2025 from 1.3 per cent to 1.4 per cent.
The OECD’s forecasts are closely watched by City economists and government officials as a key indicator of how the UK economy compares with the world’s most dominant economies, with its figures likely to set the tone on growth and inflation ahead of the Budget.
Read the full story here 👇”
So, the OECD has raised its growth forecast for the UK this year and expects us to be the second fastest G7 economy after the US. How terrible, Starmer must go!
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I think it is a very sad story to many of my age group, but sadly for Wedgwood and other products of their golden era times, tastes have changed but they didn't
It's more of a cycle. Wedgwood has been in and out of fashion for decades - centuries. Like brown furniture, it will come back - good time to buy if you have the storage.
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
It's variation of why people nailed hardboard across Edwardian fireplaces in the 60s and 70s. Not fashionable.
No, I think the demise of Wedgwood crockery is more like brown furniture. It is not about fashion so much as practicality. Homes are smaller, people no longer have the space, and this is aggravated by the march of technology in just the last ten or 20 years, so plates need to be dishwasher-safe and furniture needs space for screens and holes for cables.
LG had a rollable TV that could auto-hide itself. Ludicrously expensive - but if someone ever gets that kind of thing down into the low four digit bracket it'll do wonders for home decor.
Most Grand Designs houses, if they have a TV at all, have ones that pop up and down out of a piece of furniture. More seriously as screens can show anything, is there a market for a wall hung TV that shows family photos, great art etc when not in use as a TV? Or even just chameleon's into the wall?
I often use ours to display the scene from one of the webcams on either the Keighley & Worth Valley or East Lancs railways.
Watching the comings and goings across the Ramsbottom level crossing can be therapeutic.
That sounds nice. Our new upstairs lounge looks over fields of horses and sheep. Its lovely. But image a wall that could show any view you wanted - the beach at Croyde, the mountains around Wasdale Head, Everest from 70 miles away etc - surely this once sci fi idea is getting really close?
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
It's variation of why people nailed hardboard across Edwardian fireplaces in the 60s and 70s. Not fashionable.
No, I think the demise of Wedgwood crockery is more like brown furniture. It is not about fashion so much as practicality. Homes are smaller, people no longer have the space, and this is aggravated by the march of technology in just the last ten or 20 years, so plates need to be dishwasher-safe and furniture needs space for screens and holes for cables.
LG had a rollable TV that could auto-hide itself. Ludicrously expensive - but if someone ever gets that kind of thing down into the low four digit bracket it'll do wonders for home decor.
Most Grand Designs houses, if they have a TV at all, have ones that pop up and down out of a piece of furniture. More seriously as screens can show anything, is there a market for a wall hung TV that shows family photos, great art etc when not in use as a TV? Or even just chameleon's into the wall?
I often use ours to display the scene from one of the webcams on either the Keighley & Worth Valley or East Lancs railways.
Watching the comings and goings across the Ramsbottom level crossing can be therapeutic.
That sounds nice. Our new upstairs lounge looks over fields of horses and sheep. Its lovely. But image a wall that could show any view you wanted - the beach at Croyde, the mountains around Wasdale Head, Everest from 70 miles away etc - surely this once sci fi idea is getting really close?
There are plenty of webcams out there you can stream, right now.
I'm thinking of whole wall image, so as if the wall wasn't there, rather than the web cam part.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils.
It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important and I think EN are right on this.
( Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/ )
Are we going to have to wait until October or November every year of this parliament wondering how she's going to make our shit sandwich even bigger?
The uncertainty it drives into the economy and investment for months on end is criminal. And hurts UK Plc.
This is a key point - investment has dried up. To be fair to Reeves it isn't just her, it dried up before Labour took over. And its in every industry. It's been fascinating watching north sea industry leaders aghast at "drill baby drill" - that is the opposite of what they want. Planned, deliverable, profitable investment over a long period of time, with stable politics giving a platform they trust putting money into.
This is crazy. The UK economy has stalled completely, and the never ending shit show cycle makes it worse.
You're an investor. The UK has had 6 Prime Ministers and 8 Chancellors in 10 years. With wild policy swings in that time. Sometimes week to week. Why would you invest here? We need stability. Leaving Reeves in place brings stability to the ver changing cycle but in this case it is stability as the ship sinks. She needs to go.
£150bn of US AI investment announced last week and £2bn for the new Gatwick runway yesterday. Not sure its true to say that investment has dried up. The lack of new build housing is seriously disappointing though.
AI has major energy requirements to the extent I can see the US being happy to dump those on us.
So where is the energy capacity coming from to supply that £150bn of power hungry GPUs
Add high electricity costs to the list of reasons to explain Labour's crushing defeat at GE2029.
Crushing defeat to whom?
The Lib Dems if they can find a Macron, otherwise Reform.
Depends on tactical voting, 30% for Reform is certainly not enough to win a majority if LD, Green and Labour voters tactically vote against Farage
Theoretically tactical voting could stop Farage, but I have my doubts.
Firstly the extent to which Labour are underwater would reduce the number of people prepared to vote Labour tactically. Secondly, we've seen at previous elections that it's not always obvious which way a tactical voter should vote, with conflicting advice given by different websites, depending on whether you focus on the previous election result or on different projections of the vote at the next election before tactical voting, and other factors.
And how many voters look at websites advising them how to vote tactically? Let's face it - not too many.
It will really depend on what ground-game the parties in the individual constituencies can deploy. That requires troops and resources. Who is going to have them? And where? Some of the results last year will give us an indication.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
I am surprised now our resident autism expert is up that we have had no commentary on Donald Trump having announced he has discovered the cause of autism. Paracetamol and Tylenol consumption apparently. I wonder if intravenous bleach delivery is the cure like it was for COVID according to Dr Trump.
Isn't this a classic correlation-not-causation thing?
(I haven't looked at the research but) yes you can well imagine confounders such as maternal health conditions or stress that could potentially correlate with both autism and paracetamol use. Don't control for the confounder and you get a spurious correlation between autism and paracetamol.
The actual summary from the Harvard School of Public Health suggests there’s “evidence of an association” but that more research is required.
Sadly, everyone’s reaction appears to be purely based on US politics.
Not a bit of it.
As I noted upthread, even if you accept the new selective statistical analysis as entirely valid, the signal suggesting an association is still a weak one.
It certainly doesn't begin to justify the kind of presidential bully pulpit recommendations we saw yesterday.
The fact that it's contradicted by several other similar analyses makes it even more ridiculous.
Every single person who takes paracetamol will die. FACT!
Even worse, it can take decades to kill you.
Depends on how much you take. Taking around 10 x 500mgm tablets at the same time is probably going to be fatal 'soon'; when I was involved with these things it wasn't uncommon for teenage girls ditched by their boyfriend to raid their paracetamol stocks, usually reserved for menstrual pain and swallow eight or ten. Then regret it and end up in A&E, where, depending on how long it was since they'd taken the tablets, it could be quite difficult to save their lives. It's the reason why paracetamol are, nowadays sold in packs of 8 or 16 freely, and larger quantities only where there's the possibility of expert intervention.
I am surprised now our resident autism expert is up that we have had no commentary on Donald Trump having announced he has discovered the cause of autism. Paracetamol and Tylenol consumption apparently. I wonder if intravenous bleach delivery is the cure like it was for COVID according to Dr Trump.
Isn't this a classic correlation-not-causation thing?
(I haven't looked at the research but) yes you can well imagine confounders such as maternal health conditions or stress that could potentially correlate with both autism and paracetamol use. Don't control for the confounder and you get a spurious correlation between autism and paracetamol.
The actual summary from the Harvard School of Public Health suggests there’s “evidence of an association” but that more research is required.
Sadly, everyone’s reaction appears to be purely based on US politics.
An association, yes. Not the same as causation, although that could be the case. The review's dos-response relationship is interesting, but not conclusive - you could also get that with a confounder that has dose-response relationships with autism and paracetamol use. An obvious example would be that there's something during pregnancy that associates with both autism and pain (and so paracetamol use).
The FDA guidance, for what it's worth, seems reasonable. Trump's claims, less so. It's an area worth researching, as midwives used to say that paracetamol was safe as it didn't cross the placenta, which is now known not to be true.
ETA: Interesting to see Kennedy's take on this - if autism is caused by paracetamol during pregnancy then does that mean that it's not caused by MMR at one year any more?
Looks fine from a skim. For ASD they seem to have 8 studies, but based conclusions on 6 (might be two were crap, I haven't read enough to understand the discrepancy). They note a sibling study (which can control for common genetic and environmental factors so might be preferred to singleton studies) found no relationship, but somewhat discount it due to small sample size so suggest lack of relationship may due to low power from that. All that may be valid.
If the US do pursue this and paracetamol use during pregnancy falls* then we'll have a nice natural experiment to assess ASD with interrupted time series or diff-in-diff versus other countries etc. So it's good for science, potentially.
*not sure how well this can be measured - presumably a lot of this is over the counter rather than GP sanctioned/prescribed
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I think it is a very sad story to many of my age group, but sadly for Wedgwood and other products of their golden era times, tastes have changed but they didn't
It's more of a cycle. Wedgwood has been in and out of fashion for decades - centuries. Like brown furniture, it will come back - good time to buy if you have the storage.
I like brown furniture. Once enough of it has been destroyed, the rest will see its value rise, as it comes back into fashion.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
Personally I think the most likely way forward for Trump regime is that they get SCOTUS to rule that the 22nd meant "consecutive" terms.
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
It's variation of why people nailed hardboard across Edwardian fireplaces in the 60s and 70s. Not fashionable.
No, I think the demise of Wedgwood crockery is more like brown furniture. It is not about fashion so much as practicality. Homes are smaller, people no longer have the space, and this is aggravated by the march of technology in just the last ten or 20 years, so plates need to be dishwasher-safe and furniture needs space for screens and holes for cables.
LG had a rollable TV that could auto-hide itself. Ludicrously expensive - but if someone ever gets that kind of thing down into the low four digit bracket it'll do wonders for home decor.
Most Grand Designs houses, if they have a TV at all, have ones that pop up and down out of a piece of furniture. More seriously as screens can show anything, is there a market for a wall hung TV that shows family photos, great art etc when not in use as a TV? Or even just chameleon's into the wall?
I often use ours to display the scene from one of the webcams on either the Keighley & Worth Valley or East Lancs railways.
Watching the comings and goings across the Ramsbottom level crossing can be therapeutic.
That sounds nice. Our new upstairs lounge looks over fields of horses and sheep. Its lovely. But image a wall that could show any view you wanted - the beach at Croyde, the mountains around Wasdale Head, Everest from 70 miles away etc - surely this once sci fi idea is getting really close?
There are plenty of webcams out there you can stream, right now.
I'm thinking of whole wall image, so as if the wall wasn't there, rather than the web cam part.
I wonder how well that would work in practice. Ok(ish) for distant stuff maybe, but anything vaguely foreground would (if a real window) adjust as you moved your head or moved around. I wonder whether it would ever feel anything like reality, no matter how good the screen. Perhaps it would.
Single user, of course, you could theoretically at least track the subject with cameras and adjust the view in real time, but again that would have to be perfect or you might get odd effects, I guess.
Isn't there an old Tomorrows World that covered this? I think I remember someone posting one once.
"Hi Everyone, Today is Bi is a day to recognise the bisexual community and celebrate bisexual people globally. The bisexual community is frequently referred to as the forgotten part of the LGBTQ+ community and they face a number of negative stereotypes and expectations. Bisexual Visibility Day is an opportunity to celebrate bisexuals and discover the difficulties that many members of the bisexual community face."
Not quite sure of the difficulties, but then I'm not bi. Also not sure what celebration I'm supposed to be doing?
"Hi Everyone, Today is Bi is a day to recognise the bisexual community and celebrate bisexual people globally. The bisexual community is frequently referred to as the forgotten part of the LGBTQ+ community and they face a number of negative stereotypes and expectations. Bisexual Visibility Day is an opportunity to celebrate bisexuals and discover the difficulties that many members of the bisexual community face."
Not quite sure of the difficulties, but then I'm not bi. Also not sure what celebration I'm supposed to be doing?
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
Of course it's bloody arguable! They were only using 2% of the heath, and NE fail to say why this is suddenly an issue after over 30 years.
And your last paragraph shows why this matters: it is common land, designed to be an open space for residents. The kite festival was a usage for that common land, and one that had had minimal impact over the many decades it had already been run. Only Natural England objected. As they will feel free to object to everything that might benefit the locals.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
Grass that has been cut in exactly the same way for many decades.
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I’m writing a piece on this theme. THE ASTONISHING CHEAPNESS OF LOVELY OLD THINGS
I am surprised now our resident autism expert is up that we have had no commentary on Donald Trump having announced he has discovered the cause of autism. Paracetamol and Tylenol consumption apparently. I wonder if intravenous bleach delivery is the cure like it was for COVID according to Dr Trump.
Isn't this a classic correlation-not-causation thing?
(I haven't looked at the research but) yes you can well imagine confounders such as maternal health conditions or stress that could potentially correlate with both autism and paracetamol use. Don't control for the confounder and you get a spurious correlation between autism and paracetamol.
The actual summary from the Harvard School of Public Health suggests there’s “evidence of an association” but that more research is required.
Ok this is totally freaky. Last night I cut my thumb deeply on my new handmade Sardinian knife. Luckily the knife is so sharp the clean cut was easy to bind with a bunch of plasters
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
Every single person who takes paracetamol will die. FACT!
Even worse, it can take decades to kill you.
Depends on how much you take. Taking around 10 x 500mgm tablets at the same time is probably going to be fatal 'soon'; when I was involved with these things it wasn't uncommon for teenage girls ditched by their boyfriend to raid their paracetamol stocks, usually reserved for menstrual pain and swallow eight or ten. Then regret it and end up in A&E, where, depending on how long it was since they'd taken the tablets, it could be quite difficult to save their lives. It's the reason why paracetamol are, nowadays sold in packs of 8 or 16 freely, and larger quantities only where there's the possibility of expert intervention.
I genuinely didn't know that as few pills as that would probably cause death.
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I’m writing a piece on this theme. THE ASTONISHING CHEAPNESS OF LOVELY OLD THINGS
You talking about yourself again ?
He's trying to pull Joanna Lumley.
You know I have already tried to pull Joanna Lumley? About 35 years ago
"Hi Everyone, Today is Bi is a day to recognise the bisexual community and celebrate bisexual people globally. The bisexual community is frequently referred to as the forgotten part of the LGBTQ+ community and they face a number of negative stereotypes and expectations. Bisexual Visibility Day is an opportunity to celebrate bisexuals and discover the difficulties that many members of the bisexual community face."
Not quite sure of the difficulties, but then I'm not bi. Also not sure what celebration I'm supposed to be doing?
Speak to Leon as he is bi-sexual,
The only sex he gets he has to buy.
As woody Allen said, “don’t knock masturbation, it’s sex with someone you love. Who doesn’t charge”
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
Personally I think the most likely way forward for Trump regime is that they get SCOTUS to rule that the 22nd meant "consecutive" terms.
I think the thing is that they don't have to rule on whether he can be inaugurated until after the election.
Before the election they only have to rule on whether his name can be on the ballot. They've established precedent for that with their ruling on Colorado's attempt to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 (which appealed to the 14th amendment).
So then the scenario is that Trump is on the ballot, and has won the election. Do SCOTUS then rule that Trump can't be inaugurated? Bollocks they will.
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I’m writing a piece on this theme. THE ASTONISHING CHEAPNESS OF LOVELY OLD THINGS
You talking about yourself again ?
He's trying to pull Joanna Lumley.
You know I have already tried to pull Joanna Lumley? About 35 years ago
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I’m writing a piece on this theme. THE ASTONISHING CHEAPNESS OF LOVELY OLD THINGS
You talking about yourself again ?
He's trying to pull Joanna Lumley.
You know I have already tried to pull Joanna Lumley? About 35 years ago
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
They can't be elected by the Electoral College yes, which the Constitution also says must meet every 4 years to elect the President
Wedgwood was a British status symbol but now you can’t even give it away
“No ta, love. I won’t be able to shift that,” said the bloke behind the counter at Battlesbridge Antiques Centre when I asked if he’d buy my late aunt’s 1970s Wedgwood “Clementine” dinner service. I got the same answer from all five of my local charity shops when I tried to give it away. “Those sets take up too much shelf space and they don’t sell,” shrugged the kindly woman in Barnardo’s. “Hardly anybody uses that stuff any more. It won’t go in the microwave or dishwasher will it? You could try eBay, though?” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/wedgwood-from-status-symbol-to-cant-give-it-away/ (£££)
Another one for pb's interior design correspondent, aka Leon.
I’m writing a piece on this theme. THE ASTONISHING CHEAPNESS OF LOVELY OLD THINGS
You talking about yourself again ?
He's trying to pull Joanna Lumley.
You know I have already tried to pull Joanna Lumley? About 35 years ago
Nearly succeeded
I thought of you, when I watched Jordan Belfort trying to do the same, in The Wolf of Wall Street.
Every single person who takes paracetamol will die. FACT!
Even worse, it can take decades to kill you.
Depends on how much you take. Taking around 10 x 500mgm tablets at the same time is probably going to be fatal 'soon'; when I was involved with these things it wasn't uncommon for teenage girls ditched by their boyfriend to raid their paracetamol stocks, usually reserved for menstrual pain and swallow eight or ten. Then regret it and end up in A&E, where, depending on how long it was since they'd taken the tablets, it could be quite difficult to save their lives. It's the reason why paracetamol are, nowadays sold in packs of 8 or 16 freely, and larger quantities only where there's the possibility of expert intervention.
I genuinely didn't know that as few pills as that would probably cause death.
It’s variable - depends on your liver function IIRC. There are very few OTC drugs where the daily dose (4g) is so close to the toxic dose. Paracetamol is one of them.
Wikipedia quotes a paper that says that 10 grams is “likely” to cause paracetamol toxicity. Smaller people can tolerate less than that. It’s unfortunately also easy to accidentally overdose as the half life of the toxic byproducts is measured in days - 2 days of 6g / day can be enough to overwhelm the liver’s ability to process it.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
Personally I think the most likely way forward for Trump regime is that they get SCOTUS to rule that the 22nd meant "consecutive" terms.
I think @EdmundinTokyo has called it, Trump will just run, assuming he's not dead or in a coma. High likelihood that'll he'll win by a higher margin riding a populist wave of "sticking it to the Dems".
Are we going to have to wait until October or November every year of this parliament wondering how she's going to make our shit sandwich even bigger?
The uncertainty it drives into the economy and investment for months on end is criminal. And hurts UK Plc.
This is a key point - investment has dried up. To be fair to Reeves it isn't just her, it dried up before Labour took over. And its in every industry. It's been fascinating watching north sea industry leaders aghast at "drill baby drill" - that is the opposite of what they want. Planned, deliverable, profitable investment over a long period of time, with stable politics giving a platform they trust putting money into.
This is crazy. The UK economy has stalled completely, and the never ending shit show cycle makes it worse.
You're an investor. The UK has had 6 Prime Ministers and 8 Chancellors in 10 years. With wild policy swings in that time. Sometimes week to week. Why would you invest here? We need stability. Leaving Reeves in place brings stability to the ver changing cycle but in this case it is stability as the ship sinks. She needs to go.
£150bn of US AI investment announced last week and £2bn for the new Gatwick runway yesterday. Not sure its true to say that investment has dried up. The lack of new build housing is seriously disappointing though.
AI has major energy requirements to the extent I can see the US being happy to dump those on us.
So where is the energy capacity coming from to supply that £150bn of power hungry GPUs
Add high electricity costs to the list of reasons to explain Labour's crushing defeat at GE2029.
Crushing defeat to whom?
The Lib Dems if they can find a Macron, otherwise Reform.
Depends on tactical voting, 30% for Reform is certainly not enough to win a majority if LD, Green and Labour voters tactically vote against Farage
Tactical voting on the centre left won't work if Labour remain as popular as they are now.
Your bunch need to get out there and blame Farage for assisting your lot to break everything. And to call out his links to Trump and his gushing appraisal of Putin.
How many Conservative voters do you think would vote tactically to keep Reform out?
Fewer, more would vote Reform to remove a Labour MP.
Though Reform have the problem in most Labour seats the Tories were second in 2024, so Tory voters are less likely to vote tactically as they have no reason to based on the previous election result
Decided to end the podcast now, rather than the season's conclusion. Time's been difficult, and I've been a bit off-colour (unsure if you can tell, but I felt like shit recording the last one). Dislike ending it prematurely, but there we are.
I'll still be inflicting bad F1 tips on you all.
And good ones that fail by half a second, or because Norris has his first reliability failure in two years...
Ok this is totally freaky. Last night I cut my thumb deeply on my new handmade Sardinian knife. Luckily the knife is so sharp the clean cut was easy to bind with a bunch of plasters
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
😶😶😶😶😶
They're watching.
Didn't you have workmen in recently ? I recommend "The Conversation" for tips on surveillance.
Can you please embed the specific one of your own posts you are referring to? Even Morris embeds posts now!
This one
“Ok this is totally freaky. Last night I cut my thumb deeply on my new handmade Sardinian knife. Luckily the knife is so sharp the clean cut was easy to bind with a bunch of plasters
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
😶😶😶😶😶”
I cannot think of any explanation other than coincidence. But what a freaky sci fi singularity of a coincidence
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
They can't be elected by the Electoral College yes, which the Constitution also says must meet every 4 years to elect the President
So you're relying on 270-odd electors, chosen as Trump loyalists, to defy 80 million Trump voters and vote for someone else as President in the electoral college?
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
SCOTUS can do whatever they like. Suppose Trump was on the ballot (SCOTUS ruled that states had to list him even if they think he's ineligible, they already decided this previously over the insurrection issue) and he won the election. He is the choice of the voters, and he's in charge of the army. If he was ineligible to be president, it would be up to his electors who they chose, and they would choose some other Republican. SCOTUS rules that he's the legitimate president. What specifically happens that's going to stop him staying on? Is there going to be a revolution demanding that SCOTUS be ignored and some other Trump-friendly Republican installed?
No, SCOTUS can't do whatever they like if most Americans no longer respect their rulings if they are clearly made on political not legal and constitutional grounds.
If the 22nd Amendment had not been repealed by Congress and the required 3/4 of states, highly likely, then SCOTUS cannot place Trump on the ballot. If it has been repealed by that process and Trump won the election then fair enough
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
They can't be elected by the Electoral College yes, which the Constitution also says must meet every 4 years to elect the President
So you're relying on 270-odd electors, chosen as Trump loyalists, to defy 80 million Trump voters and vote for someone else as President in the electoral college?
The electors are only Trump loyalists if Trump wins, if Trump loses they will be Democrat electors who will vote for a Democrat as President over Trump
Can you please embed the specific one of your own posts you are referring to? Even Morris embeds posts now!
This one
“Ok this is totally freaky. Last night I cut my thumb deeply on my new handmade Sardinian knife. Luckily the knife is so sharp the clean cut was easy to bind with a bunch of plasters
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
😶😶😶😶😶”
I cannot think of any explanation other than coincidence. But what a freaky sci fi singularity of a coincidence
The edge of the plaster might be detectable on a touchscreen, if anyone has coded it to look out for it (though plasters seem like a low-value product to go for that trouble for).
Can you please embed the specific one of your own posts you are referring to? Even Morris embeds posts now!
This one
“Ok this is totally freaky. Last night I cut my thumb deeply on my new handmade Sardinian knife. Luckily the knife is so sharp the clean cut was easy to bind with a bunch of plasters
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
😶😶😶😶😶”
I cannot think of any explanation other than coincidence. But what a freaky sci fi singularity of a coincidence
I doubt you were quiet when you clumsily did the deed. You just don't remember
Just had letter asking for repayment of £400 approx to DWP which relates to dad's state pension which they were slow to stop after his death. He died in February - 7 months ago! Probate was granted May and cash in estate already distributed!
Anything to do with the DWP and guidance is published on the internet - but you just have to find it and be able to interpret it.
The advice is that you shouldn't distribute until all the debts are known. There is a debt team you can talk to. You should at least challenge them to produce the information so you can check. They do make mistakes ....
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
I'm already working on the assumption that the regime provoke enough political violence to suspend at least part of the midterms. Roll that forward and we're into suspending the general election as well due to the ongoing state of emergency.
It's extraordinarily illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the regime already pushing the boundaries of acting outside the law to test how to do it.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
They can't be elected by the Electoral College yes, which the Constitution also says must meet every 4 years to elect the President
They shouldn't. But what's the sanction if they do? Without a sanction, it's all just words.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
SCOTUS can do whatever they like. Suppose Trump was on the ballot (SCOTUS ruled that states had to list him even if they think he's ineligible, they already decided this previously over the insurrection issue) and he won the election. He is the choice of the voters, and he's in charge of the army. If he was ineligible to be president, it would be up to his electors who they chose, and they would choose some other Republican. SCOTUS rules that he's the legitimate president. What specifically happens that's going to stop him staying on? Is there going to be a revolution demanding that SCOTUS be ignored and some other Trump-friendly Republican installed?
Putting Trump on the ballot will create absolute conniptions. Blue states will refuse and Trump will send in troops which provokes the political violence needed to suspend the elections in those blue states...
Ok this is totally freaky. Last night I cut my thumb deeply on my new handmade Sardinian knife. Luckily the knife is so sharp the clean cut was easy to bind with a bunch of plasters
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
😶😶😶😶😶
Did you bellow out loud (in the way of we old farts) ‘Where the fuck are the plasters?!’ I’ve had similar experiences based on just chuntering to myself.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
SCOTUS can do whatever they like. Suppose Trump was on the ballot (SCOTUS ruled that states had to list him even if they think he's ineligible, they already decided this previously over the insurrection issue) and he won the election. He is the choice of the voters, and he's in charge of the army. If he was ineligible to be president, it would be up to his electors who they chose, and they would choose some other Republican. SCOTUS rules that he's the legitimate president. What specifically happens that's going to stop him staying on? Is there going to be a revolution demanding that SCOTUS be ignored and some other Trump-friendly Republican installed?
Putting Trump on the ballot will create absolute conniptions. Blue states will refuse and Trump will send in troops which provokes the political violence needed to suspend the elections in those blue states...
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
They can't be elected by the Electoral College yes, which the Constitution also says must meet every 4 years to elect the President
They shouldn't. But what's the sanction if they do? Without a sanction, it's all just words.
You could surely say that about the constitution - its all just words.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
SCOTUS can do whatever they like. Suppose Trump was on the ballot (SCOTUS ruled that states had to list him even if they think he's ineligible, they already decided this previously over the insurrection issue) and he won the election. He is the choice of the voters, and he's in charge of the army. If he was ineligible to be president, it would be up to his electors who they chose, and they would choose some other Republican. SCOTUS rules that he's the legitimate president. What specifically happens that's going to stop him staying on? Is there going to be a revolution demanding that SCOTUS be ignored and some other Trump-friendly Republican installed?
No, SCOTUS can't do whatever they like if most Americans no longer respect their rulings if they are clearly made on political not legal and constitutional grounds.
If the 22nd Amendment had not been repealed by Congress and the required 3/4 of states, highly likely, then SCOTUS cannot place Trump on the ballot. If it has been repealed by that process and Trump won the election then fair enough
"SCOTUS can't do whatever they like if most Americans no longer respect their rulings" is a distant image in the rear view mirror of the USA.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
Of course it's bloody arguable! They were only using 2% of the heath, and NE fail to say why this is suddenly an issue after over 30 years.
And your last paragraph shows why this matters: it is common land, designed to be an open space for residents. The kite festival was a usage for that common land, and one that had had minimal impact over the many decades it had already been run. Only Natural England objected. As they will feel free to object to everything that might benefit the locals.
They can fuck right off.
Matt is the "Small amount", £3,000 your words or NEs ?
It's amazingly De haut en bas from the Sir Humphreys there, ripe for a cull.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
SCOTUS can do whatever they like. Suppose Trump was on the ballot (SCOTUS ruled that states had to list him even if they think he's ineligible, they already decided this previously over the insurrection issue) and he won the election. He is the choice of the voters, and he's in charge of the army. If he was ineligible to be president, it would be up to his electors who they chose, and they would choose some other Republican. SCOTUS rules that he's the legitimate president. What specifically happens that's going to stop him staying on? Is there going to be a revolution demanding that SCOTUS be ignored and some other Trump-friendly Republican installed?
No, SCOTUS can't do whatever they like if most Americans no longer respect their rulings if they are clearly made on political not legal and constitutional grounds.
If the 22nd Amendment had not been repealed by Congress and the required 3/4 of states, highly likely, then SCOTUS cannot place Trump on the ballot. If it has been repealed by that process and Trump won the election then fair enough
1. Scores of millions will respect their ruling 2. And declare that the people rejecting it are traitors 3. Backed up by media propaganda 4. The people really upset by it get labelled ANTIFA and put into camps
Can you please embed the specific one of your own posts you are referring to? Even Morris embeds posts now!
This one
“Ok this is totally freaky. Last night I cut my thumb deeply on my new handmade Sardinian knife. Luckily the knife is so sharp the clean cut was easy to bind with a bunch of plasters
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
😶😶😶😶😶”
I cannot think of any explanation other than coincidence. But what a freaky sci fi singularity of a coincidence
Actually, in the very near future, it will be impossible for anyone to know they're not under full time surveillance. The ubiquity of cheap smart devices is every kind, and the increasing capability, and capacity of AI make that inevitable.
Terminally online, whether you will it or not.
And the paranoia has been largely conditioned out of us.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
It's actually 3/4 of the States. 2/3 in both House and Senate. (I see you corrected yourself)
There’s now said to be 130 Chinese trains stuck in Belarus, after Poland closed their border a couple of weeks ago. €2bn a month in goods pass through the Border, mostly cheap Chinese tat heading for Europe.
The Chinese are furiously trying all possible diplomatic efforts, but Poland has little intention of reopening the line, and there’s already disruption as far back as the Russian border with Khazakhstan.
Can you please embed the specific one of your own posts you are referring to? Even Morris embeds posts now!
This one
“Ok this is totally freaky. Last night I cut my thumb deeply on my new handmade Sardinian knife. Luckily the knife is so sharp the clean cut was easy to bind with a bunch of plasters
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
😶😶😶😶😶”
I cannot think of any explanation other than coincidence. But what a freaky sci fi singularity of a coincidence
There will be something you do regularly with your hands with the assistance of the internet, and Amazon has picked up on the fact you have suddenly stopped doing it.
(This is quite an obscure Dickie Bird reference - but I remember him stopping play against the West Indies at Old Trafford due to excess sunlight, reflecting from a window somewhere - loudly complaining "There is a light in that window". Or something.)
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
Personally I think the most likely way forward for Trump regime is that they get SCOTUS to rule that the 22nd meant "consecutive" terms.
I think @EdmundinTokyo has called it, Trump will just run, assuming he's not dead or in a coma. High likelihood that'll he'll win by a higher margin riding a populist wave of "sticking it to the Dems".
To be clear I'm not predicting that. I don't think he'll try to run again, if he does SCOTUS could nip it in the bud if they chose, and if he makes it to the ballot I think he's more likely to lose than win. But it's not wildly unlikely. The fact that it's blatantly unconstitutional won't necessarily stop it happening, because ultimately if SCOTUS dgaf then the only thing that can stop them is a revolution, and it's hard to organize a revolution to protect democracy if you just lost the election.
Every single person who takes paracetamol will die. FACT!
Even worse, it can take decades to kill you.
Depends on how much you take. Taking around 10 x 500mgm tablets at the same time is probably going to be fatal 'soon'; when I was involved with these things it wasn't uncommon for teenage girls ditched by their boyfriend to raid their paracetamol stocks, usually reserved for menstrual pain and swallow eight or ten. Then regret it and end up in A&E, where, depending on how long it was since they'd taken the tablets, it could be quite difficult to save their lives. It's the reason why paracetamol are, nowadays sold in packs of 8 or 16 freely, and larger quantities only where there's the possibility of expert intervention.
Many years ago I met a young lady who regularly 'tried to off herself' and was well-known in her local A&E. She told me, perfectly seriously, that she had to use paracetamol rather than ?ibuprofen? because she was allergic to the antidote for the non-paracetamol one.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
I'm already working on the assumption that the regime provoke enough political violence to suspend at least part of the midterms. Roll that forward and we're into suspending the general election as well due to the ongoing state of emergency.
It's extraordinarily illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the regime already pushing the boundaries of acting outside the law to test how to do it.
One of the things about the law is that most of the time it doesn't need to be enforced. Most people willingly follow the law, or do so out of fear of the consequences, whether they be social embarrassment, or official sanction.
So the 22nd amendment has never been enforced. No-one had to tell Eisenhower not to run for a third term, nor Reagan, Clinton, Bush II or Obama.
Trump is different. He does not willingly follow the law. He feels no shame or embarrassment. He sees official sanction as the start of a negotiation. And no-one is willing to enforce the law on him, least of all his SCOTUS.
That's why it's only ill health that will stop a third Trump term.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
Personally I think the most likely way forward for Trump regime is that they get SCOTUS to rule that the 22nd meant "consecutive" terms.
I think @EdmundinTokyo has called it, Trump will just run, assuming he's not dead or in a coma. High likelihood that'll he'll win by a higher margin riding a populist wave of "sticking it to the Dems".
Sadly the only way to beat Trump will be with an assassin bullet.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
I'm already working on the assumption that the regime provoke enough political violence to suspend at least part of the midterms. Roll that forward and we're into suspending the general election as well due to the ongoing state of emergency.
It's extraordinarily illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the regime already pushing the boundaries of acting outside the law to test how to do it.
They will do as much as they think they can get away with.
The rules will only matter if enough people push back.
(This is quite an obscure Dickie Bird reference - but I remember him stopping play against the West Indies at Old Trafford due to excess sunlight, reflecting from a window somewhere - loudly complaining "There is a light in that window". Or something.)
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
SCOTUS can do whatever they like. Suppose Trump was on the ballot (SCOTUS ruled that states had to list him even if they think he's ineligible, they already decided this previously over the insurrection issue) and he won the election. He is the choice of the voters, and he's in charge of the army. If he was ineligible to be president, it would be up to his electors who they chose, and they would choose some other Republican. SCOTUS rules that he's the legitimate president. What specifically happens that's going to stop him staying on? Is there going to be a revolution demanding that SCOTUS be ignored and some other Trump-friendly Republican installed?
No, SCOTUS can't do whatever they like if most Americans no longer respect their rulings if they are clearly made on political not legal and constitutional grounds.
If the 22nd Amendment had not been repealed by Congress and the required 3/4 of states, highly likely, then SCOTUS cannot place Trump on the ballot. If it has been repealed by that process and Trump won the election then fair enough
"SCOTUS can't do whatever they like if most Americans no longer respect their rulings" is a distant image in the rear view mirror of the USA.
You can only enforce the law if most people accept it or the army enforces it (and provided no revolution in response)
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
They can't be elected by the Electoral College yes, which the Constitution also says must meet every 4 years to elect the President
They shouldn't. But what's the sanction if they do? Without a sanction, it's all just words.
You could surely say that about the constitution - its all just words.
It is all just words. It's people who abide by it that give it meaning.
How much practical respect do Trump and his followers have for the Constitution?
Comments
YMMV on how much it looks like art...
https://x.com/presssec/status/1970242387290239345
Sadly, everyone’s reaction appears to be purely based on US politics.
Variously described as "bizarre" and "bonkers" by some in the industry.
Oh, and..
By the way, iHerb, a company that “Dr Oz” served as a “global advisor” for and still owns a major chunk of equity in, is the largest seller of Folinic Acid in the US.
It is the non-prescription version of Leucovorin, and as of today it has rapidly sold out.
https://x.com/adamscochran/status/1970264265404596516
Never let it be said they have a super abundance of imagination
(Actually the original joke was quite droll, by the fourth time, not)
The FDA guidance, for what it's worth, seems reasonable. Trump's claims, less so. It's an area worth researching, as midwives used to say that paracetamol was safe as it didn't cross the placenta, which is now known not to be true.
ETA: Interesting to see Kennedy's take on this - if autism is caused by paracetamol during pregnancy then does that mean that it's not caused by MMR at one year any more?
It certainly wouldn't even begin to account for an autism "epidemic", as the grifter Kennedy implies.
Sometimes impeccable; sometimes absurd.
“Higher taxes and the sting from US tariffs are set to restrain UK growth, according to forecasters at the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with inflation soaring above all other countries other than the US.
The OECD’s latest update on the state of the global economy said the UK’s “tighter fiscal stance” means growth will hit one per cent next year.
This is an unchanged prediction from its last forecast although it upgraded its UK growth outlook for 2025 from 1.3 per cent to 1.4 per cent.
The OECD’s forecasts are closely watched by City economists and government officials as a key indicator of how the UK economy compares with the world’s most dominant economies, with its figures likely to set the tone on growth and inflation ahead of the Budget.
Read the full story here 👇”
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils.
It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important and I think EN are right on this.
The Planning Inspectorate report is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668e8a3449b9c0597fdafa53/COM_3334565_Therfield_Heath_Application_Decision_10-07-24.docx
( Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one.
https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/ )
It will really depend on what ground-game the parties in the individual constituencies can deploy. That requires troops and resources. Who is going to have them? And where? Some of the results last year will give us an indication.
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
As I noted upthread, even if you accept the new selective statistical analysis as entirely valid, the signal suggesting an association is still a weak one.
It certainly doesn't begin to justify the kind of presidential bully pulpit recommendations we saw yesterday.
The fact that it's contradicted by several other similar analyses makes it even more ridiculous.
It's the reason why paracetamol are, nowadays sold in packs of 8 or 16 freely, and larger quantities only where there's the possibility of expert intervention.
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01208-0
Looks fine from a skim. For ASD they seem to have 8 studies, but based conclusions on 6 (might be two were crap, I haven't read enough to understand the discrepancy). They note a sibling study (which can control for common genetic and environmental factors so might be preferred to singleton studies) found no relationship, but somewhat discount it due to small sample size so suggest lack of relationship may due to low power from that. All that may be valid.
If the US do pursue this and paracetamol use during pregnancy falls* then we'll have a nice natural experiment to assess ASD with interrupted time series or diff-in-diff versus other countries etc. So it's good for science, potentially.
*not sure how well this can be measured - presumably a lot of this is over the counter rather than GP sanctioned/prescribed
(Suchomimus, 3 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcxUvpl2ZT8
Single user, of course, you could theoretically at least track the subject with cameras and adjust the view in real time, but again that would have to be perfect or you might get odd effects, I guess.
Isn't there an old Tomorrows World that covered this? I think I remember someone posting one once.
The only sex he gets he has to buy.
And your last paragraph shows why this matters: it is common land, designed to be an open space for residents. The kite festival was a usage for that common land, and one that had had minimal impact over the many decades it had already been run. Only Natural England objected. As they will feel free to object to everything that might benefit the locals.
They can fuck right off.
Needs to scan
THE ASTONISHING GOOD VALUE OF LOVELY OLD THINGS
Trump: "We've got a lot of stupid people in this country running things."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1970240889420214312
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
😶😶😶😶😶
Nearly succeeded
Before the election they only have to rule on whether his name can be on the ballot. They've established precedent for that with their ruling on Colorado's attempt to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 (which appealed to the 14th amendment).
So then the scenario is that Trump is on the ballot, and has won the election. Do SCOTUS then rule that Trump can't be inaugurated? Bollocks they will.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2n4877j7lo
Wikipedia quotes a paper that says that 10 grams is “likely” to cause paracetamol toxicity. Smaller people can tolerate less than that. It’s unfortunately also easy to accidentally overdose as the half life of the toxic byproducts is measured in days - 2 days of 6g / day can be enough to overwhelm the liver’s ability to process it.
High likelihood that'll he'll win by a higher margin riding a populist wave of "sticking it to the Dems".
Though Reform have the problem in most Labour seats the Tories were second in 2024, so Tory voters are less likely to vote tactically as they have no reason to based on the previous election result
Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-2025-azerbaijan-grand-prix-review/
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/f1-2025-azerbaijan-grand-prix-review/id1786574257?i=1000728001351
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/68qqjppSh89xL0X2bLCxfV
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/af23e74c-07e7-437d-9864-6d9e8b153136/undercutters---f1-podcast-f1-2025-azerbaijan-grand-prix-review
Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/09/f1-2025-azerbaijan-grand-prix-review.html
Decided to end the podcast now, rather than the season's conclusion. Time's been difficult, and I've been a bit off-colour (unsure if you can tell, but I felt like shit recording the last one). Dislike ending it prematurely, but there we are.
I'll still be inflicting bad F1 tips on you all.
And good ones that fail by half a second, or because Norris has his first reliability failure in two years...
Didn't you have workmen in recently ?
I recommend "The Conversation" for tips on surveillance.
RIP
“Ok this is totally freaky. Last night I cut my thumb deeply on my new handmade Sardinian knife. Luckily the knife is so sharp the clean cut was easy to bind with a bunch of plasters
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
😶😶😶😶😶”
I cannot think of any explanation other than coincidence. But what a freaky sci fi singularity of a coincidence
If the 22nd Amendment had not been repealed by Congress and the required 3/4 of states, highly likely, then SCOTUS cannot place Trump on the ballot. If it has been repealed by that process and Trump won the election then fair enough
The advice is that you shouldn't distribute until all the debts are known. There is a debt team you can talk to. You should at least challenge them to produce the information so you can check. They do make mistakes ....
https://www.gov.uk/benefit-overpayments/repayments-when-someone-has-died
Edit: Presume this is a joint debt rather than joint & several, so they might not think it's worthwhile chasing everyone.
It's extraordinarily illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the regime already pushing the boundaries of acting outside the law to test how to do it.
Without a sanction, it's all just words.
It's amazingly De haut en bas from the Sir Humphreys there, ripe for a cull.
2. And declare that the people rejecting it are traitors
3. Backed up by media propaganda
4. The people really upset by it get labelled ANTIFA and put into camps
The ubiquity of cheap smart devices is every kind, and the increasing capability, and capacity of AI make that inevitable.
Terminally online, whether you will it or not.
And the paranoia has been largely conditioned out of us.
https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1970430836668313834
The Chinese are furiously trying all possible diplomatic efforts, but Poland has little intention of reopening the line, and there’s already disruption as far back as the Russian border with Khazakhstan.
(This is quite an obscure Dickie Bird reference - but I remember him stopping play against the West Indies at Old Trafford due to excess sunlight, reflecting from a window somewhere - loudly complaining "There is a light in that window". Or something.)
EDIT: I think this is the story:
https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/england-vs-west-indies-1995-sunlight-stops-play-204912/
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
The Planning Inspectorate report is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668e8a3449b9c0597fdafa53/COM_3334565_Therfield_Heath_Application_Decision_10-07-24.docx
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
So the 22nd amendment has never been enforced. No-one had to tell Eisenhower not to run for a third term, nor Reagan, Clinton, Bush II or Obama.
Trump is different. He does not willingly follow the law. He feels no shame or embarrassment. He sees official sanction as the start of a negotiation. And no-one is willing to enforce the law on him, least of all his SCOTUS.
That's why it's only ill health that will stop a third Trump term.
The rules will only matter if enough people push back.
They rotated the pitch so it shouldn’t happen again.
How much practical respect do Trump and his followers have for the Constitution?