That’s pretty damning from Sir John. What an awful thing to say. The Tories are bad but Lib Dem’s !!
What is wrong with the Lib Dems?
Labour are aimlessly treading water lost between Palestine and Israel and hamstrung by their ridiculous "no new taxes" pledge from 14 years in Opposition. Whilst the Tories, where do you start? And the Greens, loud, excitable and as green and mad as a bag of frogs. And as for Farage, magic remedies from the MAGA right, uncosted, unhinged and unquesttioned.
At least the Greens and Reform have some interesting ideas, even if they are completely crazy. I think that is at least part of why Labour aren't doing well - I really hope the budget has something innovative it even if the kind of wholesale reform I want to see isn't there. Local fuel duty rates based on rurality index?
I like the idea of local fuel duty, but isn't it utterly impractical? My car does nearly 1k miles on a tank, I already plan my filling points to buy fuel where it's cheapest. Local duty just means that everyone will fill up at rural locations rather than big cities (the cheapest place I go semi-regularly is currently a Morrisons in Breadbury, just off the M67, although if I'm anywhere near Whitchurch I get a tank full from DA Roberts in Grindley Brook - he's usually the UK's cheapest filling station).
See - it's working because now we're talking about a hypothetical Labour policy.
It would have to be gentle gradation between no fuel duty in Benbecula to full whack in central London. It would never be perfect and cause some perverse outcomes in some cases, but far far better than something entirely counter-productive like charging on mileage which harms rural communities and incentivises short journeys.
The best motoring tax would be a flat £1 charge per journey.
How’s about not taxing mobility.
We don't, if you're rich and have an EV.
Tax is only for the little people, don't you know?
For many years, the Official Policy was that Hydrogen Fuel Cells would replace petrol - essentially, electric cars that generate their electricity from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen in a controlled reaction.
The reason that this was official policy was that
1) Hydrogen would be produced by the oil companies in existing refineries. So no job losses or massive economic effects. Small problem. This is bollocks. A facility to produce hydrogen is nothing like a refinery.
2) Hydrogen could be piped through the natural gas network. Also bollocks - aside from the incompatibility of materials and hydrogen, the network is in the wrong places.
3) people would fill up at reworked filling stations and be taxed as per petrol. Specific mention was made that pure electric vehicles would be next to impossible to tax on fuel and hence constraining usage would become very difficult.
Aside from the additional problem of hydrogen fuel cell cars not actually existing (much)….
It’s actually quite surprising that there wasn’t legislation to the effect that home chargers would be required to be installed on a separate meter, purely so that the tax could be collected on the naughty car electrons rather than the nice house electrons.
It’s too late to do it now.
This was actually considered.
Then it was pointed out that illegally bridging the setup would be unstoppable and a serious danger (fire, electrocution)
And that slow charging off a 13amp plug was unstoppable
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
Quite alarming, isn’t it!
The real worry has to be when the professional travel writers become enamoured of AI.
Professional travel writers work is indistinguishable from paid advertisements in that the commissions come from pushing a stay at a place that was given them as a freebie. If they dare to give a place an accurate "warts and all" write up then the commissions dry up very quickly.
AI is pretty good at giving you a summary of things to do, but beyond the superficial I would be very hesitant on trusting it, particularly outside of population centres. When I have asked it for ideas for hikes/walks around a particular place, I have found it can spit out a lot of nonsense that (on further research) shows that paths/trails are exceptionally challenging, remote or non-existent (yet it will present this to you as if this is a simple, well-established route). This is less of a problem in the UK, where we have limited ‘truly remote’ places, but is hugely problematic in countries like Spain or Greece where the wilds really are the wilds and you’ll be out in high temperatures.
Instead, use the AI as the starting point to get an idea and then try and find someone’s account of having done the activity.
Rather reminiscent of the early days of satnav. My East Devon friend showed me multiple scars on bridge parapets, hedgebanks, etc. etc. left by lorries and delivery vans; and told of the time his village was cut off for a fair chunk of a day by a lorry jammed on each of the two access roads.
TBF satnav improved if not the idiots doing the driving, but it did take a while.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.
Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.
It's difficult, yes, but it's not impossible. A large proportion of cases that go to the MPTS begin with a complaint about poor practise. There is a whole system set up to adjudge and investigate possible poor practise.
Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.
I am unconvinced that this adequately covers the rubbish she said.
I haven't read the article as I don't have access to the Times, but from the initial post above: " and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public."
How do you think a tribunal came to the judgement that her words would not cause alarm and concern to the public?
I don't know. I am not defending the MPTS' decision. I would hope I had been clear about that.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.
Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.
It's difficult, yes, but it's not impossible. A large proportion of cases that go to the MPTS begin with a complaint about poor practise. There is a whole system set up to adjudge and investigate possible poor practise.
Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.
I am unconvinced that this adequately covers the rubbish she said.
I haven't read the article as I don't have access to the Times, but from the initial post above: " and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public."
How do you think a tribunal came to the judgement that her words would not cause alarm and concern to the public?
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.
Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.
It's difficult, yes, but it's not impossible. A large proportion of cases that go to the MPTS begin with a complaint about poor practise. There is a whole system set up to adjudge and investigate possible poor practise.
Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.
I am unconvinced that this adequately covers the rubbish she said.
I haven't read the article as I don't have access to the Times, but from the initial post above: " and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public."
How do you think a tribunal came to the judgement that her words would not cause alarm and concern to the public?
They're doctors as well, aren't they ?
No, most on the GMC are not.
Though isnt the interim judgement that she should not be suspended from practice pending the final judgement?
It is perfectly possible for her Trust to suspend her in the meantime if she has breached Trust policy.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
The Tories do look dead and buried after this conference. There then remains the question of dividing the spoils.
How many more voters can Reform attract from the Tory corpse? A Reform vote share above 40% is feasible if the Tory collapse completes.
Will the Lib Dems show a bit of leg to attract those Tories for whom Farage/Jenrick are anathema? They seem very reluctant to go down that path.
What's the process for winding up a political party? Do the Tories have any assets?
Bit late for me - my new Win 11 PC is all assembled at the shop ...
The catch there is that it mandates a Microsoft Account for the computer login.
If there’s any serious security issues with W10 in the next year, Microsoft are going to have little choice but to deal with it. The W10 userbase is still way bigger than W11, as people now routinely keep a home PC for 6-7 years rather than 3-4 a decade ago.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
The Tories do look dead and buried after this conference. There then remains the question of dividing the spoils.
How many more voters can Reform attract from the Tory corpse? A Reform vote share above 40% is feasible if the Tory collapse completes.
Will the Lib Dems show a bit of leg to attract those Tories for whom Farage/Jenrick are anathema? They seem very reluctant to go down that path.
What's the process for winding up a political party? Do the Tories have any assets?
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.
Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.
It's difficult, yes, but it's not impossible. A large proportion of cases that go to the MPTS begin with a complaint about poor practise. There is a whole system set up to adjudge and investigate possible poor practise.
Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.
I am unconvinced that this adequately covers the rubbish she said.
I haven't read the article as I don't have access to the Times, but from the initial post above: " and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public."
How do you think a tribunal came to the judgement that her words would not cause alarm and concern to the public?
They're doctors as well, aren't they ?
Not necessarily; I had a look at the website. The pool includes lay and legally trained members as well as medics.
As for the tribunal judgement it is not published but one can email and ask nicely.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
I wonder if he leaked the 'white face' stuff himself. As leaks go it only seems to have boosted his image as the striding colossus of division and fear.
Bit late for me - my new Win 11 PC is all assembled at the shop ...
What about those of us on windows 7 ?
Stuffed, if they are on line.
BTW one thing that has been doing my head in during my current huge clear out is securely erasing files from the hard drive of a Win 7 machine when I'm not the owner and not allowed to use my specialist kit, aka screwdrivers and hammers. At least Win 10 has some sort of a facility.
Bit late for me - my new Win 11 PC is all assembled at the shop ...
The catch there is that it mandates a Microsoft Account for the computer login.
If there’s any serious security issues with W10 in the next year, Microsoft are going to have little choice but to deal with it. The W10 userbase is still way bigger than W11, as people now routinely keep a home PC for 6-7 years rather than 3-4 a decade ago.
Quite right. I have one anyway, but how it works for other cases I have no idea. I found this quite useful. Idiot level but that's what I need.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
I wonder if he leaked the 'white face' stuff himself. As leaks go it only seems to have boosted his image as the striding colossus of division and fear.
I described the Tory conference as "the gawp show". Had no idea they had such treats in store for us...
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.
Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.
It's difficult, yes, but it's not impossible. A large proportion of cases that go to the MPTS begin with a complaint about poor practise. There is a whole system set up to adjudge and investigate possible poor practise.
Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.
I am unconvinced that this adequately covers the rubbish she said.
I haven't read the article as I don't have access to the Times, but from the initial post above: " and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public."
How do you think a tribunal came to the judgement that her words would not cause alarm and concern to the public?
They're doctors as well, aren't they ?
No, most on the GMC are not.
Though isnt the interim judgement that she should not be suspended from practice pending the final judgement?
It is perfectly possible for her Trust to suspend her in the meantime if she has breached Trust policy.
Certainly that's what I would expect at my Trust.
Sorry, Foxy. It was a flip comment not expecting a serious reply.
(FWIW, my own experience of doctors ranges from the exceptionally good, to the pretty damn bad.)
Gold becomes more valuable to Australia than LNG 🇦🇺❤️🥇
📈 Revenues from gold will jump to A$60 billion in 2025-26 amid a record-breaking surge in prices 📉 LNG prices, meanwhile, have softened from the highs of the energy crisis in 2022. Australia is a top LNG exporter https://x.com/SStapczynski/status/1975466464707756216
Though the massive decline in thermal coal revenues says quite a lot about the global energy market.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.
Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.
It's difficult, yes, but it's not impossible. A large proportion of cases that go to the MPTS begin with a complaint about poor practise. There is a whole system set up to adjudge and investigate possible poor practise.
Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.
I am unconvinced that this adequately covers the rubbish she said.
I haven't read the article as I don't have access to the Times, but from the initial post above: " and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public."
How do you think a tribunal came to the judgement that her words would not cause alarm and concern to the public?
They're doctors as well, aren't they ?
No, most on the GMC are not.
Though isnt the interim judgement that she should not be suspended from practice pending the final judgement?
It is perfectly possible for her Trust to suspend her in the meantime if she has breached Trust policy.
Certainly that's what I would expect at my Trust.
Sorry, Foxy. It was a flip comment not expecting a serious reply.
(FWIW, my own experience of doctors ranges from the exceptionally good, to the pretty damn bad.)
You mean that doctors are human and vary just like other humans!! Who knew?
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
And most of us who accept the patriotic need for economic restructuring shuffle away a bit nervously when its consequences look like getting too near us. If you want to know why Mel Stride is planning to not touch the triple lock, look at who votes for his party. Same goes for those who want to leave taxes unraised and those who want to leave public spending uncut.
The politics were hard enough in 2008-10, they are harder still now.
Indeed. There's a good reason why the "economic restructuring" which is wildly popular on PB is exclusively a tax cuts for the well off, benefits and service cuts for the rest kind.
Why should all parties inhabit a space that requires high taxes and high spending in perpetuity? Why is there not a space for a party arguing for a smaller state, lower taxes, and working better with public expenditure?
This is not a message that is just the preserve of the “well off”, as you term it.
There could be such a Party. But it wouldn't poll as well as the Tories currently.
Hmmm. On the 2nd anniversary of Hamas' attacks on Israel, the BBC have published a thoughtful interview with released hostages, and the families of those who remain in captivity:
Trump's new acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan has recruited prosecutors from outside her office to take James Comey to trial, after being unable to find any federal prosecutors in her own office willing to pursue the charges, according to two people familiar with the selections. https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1975543116296786242
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.
Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.
It's difficult, yes, but it's not impossible. A large proportion of cases that go to the MPTS begin with a complaint about poor practise. There is a whole system set up to adjudge and investigate possible poor practise.
Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.
I am unconvinced that this adequately covers the rubbish she said.
I haven't read the article as I don't have access to the Times, but from the initial post above: " and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public."
How do you think a tribunal came to the judgement that her words would not cause alarm and concern to the public?
They're doctors as well, aren't they ?
No, most on the GMC are not.
Though isnt the interim judgement that she should not be suspended from practice pending the final judgement?
It is perfectly possible for her Trust to suspend her in the meantime if she has breached Trust policy.
Certainly that's what I would expect at my Trust.
Sorry, Foxy. It was a flip comment not expecting a serious reply.
(FWIW, my own experience of doctors ranges from the exceptionally good, to the pretty damn bad.)
You mean that doctors are human and vary just like other humans!! Who knew?
Absolutely. Though they tend to possess more self confidence than the average human.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
I wonder if he leaked the 'white face' stuff himself. As leaks go it only seems to have boosted his image as the striding colossus of division and fear.
Certainly being on the front page with a message that's on brand will not be causing him pain and distress.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.
Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.
I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.
That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.
Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.
It's difficult, yes, but it's not impossible. A large proportion of cases that go to the MPTS begin with a complaint about poor practise. There is a whole system set up to adjudge and investigate possible poor practise.
Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.
I am unconvinced that this adequately covers the rubbish she said.
I haven't read the article as I don't have access to the Times, but from the initial post above: " and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public."
How do you think a tribunal came to the judgement that her words would not cause alarm and concern to the public?
They're doctors as well, aren't they ?
No, not all of them. Tribunal members are a mix of doctors and lay members (that is, each panel has to have both, I think???). Anyone can apply to be a lay member. (In practice, lots of lay members are rather posh.) See https://www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/who-makes-the-decisions for details, including a full list of current Tribunal members.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
And most of us who accept the patriotic need for economic restructuring shuffle away a bit nervously when its consequences look like getting too near us. If you want to know why Mel Stride is planning to not touch the triple lock, look at who votes for his party. Same goes for those who want to leave taxes unraised and those who want to leave public spending uncut.
The politics were hard enough in 2008-10, they are harder still now.
Indeed. There's a good reason why the "economic restructuring" which is wildly popular on PB is exclusively a tax cuts for the well off, benefits and service cuts for the rest kind.
Why should all parties inhabit a space that requires high taxes and high spending in perpetuity? Why is there not a space for a party arguing for a smaller state, lower taxes, and working better with public expenditure?
This is not a message that is just the preserve of the “well off”, as you term it.
There could be such a Party. But it wouldn't poll as well as the Tories currently.
Just as there is space for a Corbyn/Sultana Party. The wisdom of it existing under FPTP is another matter.
Russian soldiers mounted part of a BMP-1 turret onto a Moskvich car, turning it into a makeshift assault vehicle.
Russian 'modernization'.
I see things like this, and I know I'm only getting a partial view from the Ukrainian side, but it's kinda amazing that the Russians are still able to fight.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
Oh, the humantay !
It's rather reminiscent of the RAF Valley discussion the other day - where there is no valley at all.
Tourists get confused between RAF Valley and the “Mach Loop” location all the time. They’re about 30 miles apart.
The latter is where the spotters stand on top of the hill and look down at the planes in the, err, valley below.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Unfortunately, due to the No Votes for Prisoners rule, those Lucy Connollys are unable to actually vote for Jenrick'.
Russian soldiers mounted part of a BMP-1 turret onto a Moskvich car, turning it into a makeshift assault vehicle.
Russian 'modernization'.
I see things like this, and I know I'm only getting a partial view from the Ukrainian side, but it's kinda amazing that the Russians are still able to fight.
The Russians are making slow, but real, progress in Ukraine.
But the Russian economy - now Ukraine has started targeting oil and energy installations - is beginning to show some real signs of problems. Shortages of petrol and diesel in what is supposed to be the world's third largest oil producer will start to weigh on industrial production, and on the ability to move men and materiel to the front.
Bit late for me - my new Win 11 PC is all assembled at the shop ...
What about those of us on windows 7 ?
Stuffed, if they are on line.
BTW one thing that has been doing my head in during my current huge clear out is securely erasing files from the hard drive of a Win 7 machine when I'm not the owner and not allowed to use my specialist kit, aka screwdrivers and hammers. At least Win 10 has some sort of a facility.
I use my PC for storage and iTunes. So I guess it’s not a major issue
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
And most of us who accept the patriotic need for economic restructuring shuffle away a bit nervously when its consequences look like getting too near us. If you want to know why Mel Stride is planning to not touch the triple lock, look at who votes for his party. Same goes for those who want to leave taxes unraised and those who want to leave public spending uncut.
The politics were hard enough in 2008-10, they are harder still now.
Indeed. There's a good reason why the "economic restructuring" which is wildly popular on PB is exclusively a tax cuts for the well off, benefits and service cuts for the rest kind.
Why should all parties inhabit a space that requires high taxes and high spending in perpetuity? Why is there not a space for a party arguing for a smaller state, lower taxes, and working better with public expenditure?
This is not a message that is just the preserve of the “well off”, as you term it.
There could be such a Party. But it wouldn't poll as well as the Tories currently.
Just as there is space for a Corbyn/Sultana Party. The wisdom of it existing under FPTP is another matter.
The only thing left in our FPTP elections is our voting system.
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
Oh, the humantay !
It's rather reminiscent of the RAF Valley discussion the other day - where there is no valley at all.
Tourists get confused between RAF Valley and the “Mach Loop” location all the time. They’re about 30 miles apart.
The latter is where the spotters stand on top of the hill and look down at the planes in the, err, valley below.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
Alternatively, in a world where 20% gets you second place in the polls, maybe it's a niche with potential.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Unfortunately, due to the No Votes for Prisoners rule, those Lucy Connollys are unable to actually vote for Jenrick'.
She's out on probation, isn't she? So, she can vote again.
(Also, presumably, the Conservative Party doesn't block prisoners from its leadership elections...)
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Trump's new acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan has recruited prosecutors from outside her office to take James Comey to trial, after being unable to find any federal prosecutors in her own office willing to pursue the charges, according to two people familiar with the selections. https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1975543116296786242
Aren’t all clowns, by their nature, dangerous and malignant?
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Except honest Bob is chasing reform voters who probably have a hatred of Tories.
This was always a risk, the Tories seeking voters who have no intent on returning to a party that they believe failed them last time round
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Unfortunately, due to the No Votes for Prisoners rule, those Lucy Connollys are unable to actually vote for Jenrick'.
Nah, they'll all be out by 2029. On the flip side all these lefty Judges will be on remand in Belmarsh for the election after that.
To be fair to Bob, the Conservative Party Conference was looking irrelevant. He has spiced up the narrative and now everyone is talking about the Tories who it would appear are in tune with the voter and despise "foreigners".
Russian soldiers mounted part of a BMP-1 turret onto a Moskvich car, turning it into a makeshift assault vehicle.
Russian 'modernization'.
I see things like this, and I know I'm only getting a partial view from the Ukrainian side, but it's kinda amazing that the Russians are still able to fight.
The Russians are making slow, but real, progress in Ukraine.
But the Russian economy - now Ukraine has started targeting oil and energy installations - is beginning to show some real signs of problems. Shortages of petrol and diesel in what is supposed to be the world's third largest oil producer will start to weigh on industrial production, and on the ability to move men and materiel to the front.
The latest figures had Russian advances slowing sharply in the second half of September, and they may be marginally in reverse in October - Ukraine are making small advances in a few places now, which may balance the progress Russia is still making around Kupiansk and Lyman.
It's potentially a bit worrying that the Ukrainians have been so quick to go back on the offensive themselves. Without an answer to FPV drones on the front line any attempt to advance will incur heavy losses in men and equipment.
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
Oh, the humantay !
It's rather reminiscent of the RAF Valley discussion the other day - where there is no valley at all.
Tourists get confused between RAF Valley and the “Mach Loop” location all the time. They’re about 30 miles apart.
The latter is where the spotters stand on top of the hill and look down at the planes in the, err, valley below.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Good politicians... well, bad politicians as well... I guess I'm saying effective politicians don't just follow the little-thought-through views of the electorate. They persuade the electorate. They respond to the concerns of the electorate (they think immigration has been out of control), but not by just giving them the obvious kneejerk response (saying immigration is still out of control and all immigrants are bad).
Russian soldiers mounted part of a BMP-1 turret onto a Moskvich car, turning it into a makeshift assault vehicle.
Russian 'modernization'.
I see things like this, and I know I'm only getting a partial view from the Ukrainian side, but it's kinda amazing that the Russians are still able to fight.
Why?
Broken Back War is a thing.
By the end in 1945, the Germans were towing aircraft with draft horses. To save fuel.
The Japanese were arming the civilian population with sharpened bamboo sticks as spears.
To the Russian Establishment, the war is existential. If they lose, they lose power. The next lot will shoot their predecessors and blame them for the defeat. If they are lucky.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Good politicians... well, bad politicians as well... I guess I'm saying effective politicians don't just follow the little-thought-through views of the electorate. They persuade the electorate. They respond to the concerns of the electorate (they think immigration has been out of control), but not by just giving them the obvious kneejerk response (saying immigration is still out of control and all immigrants are bad).
I think good politicians are also ones who realise that sometimes the plebs are right.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Thing is, for all Jenrick's fluency and bold rhetoric, if I'm struggling to sleep at night at the thought of the country being overrun with alien undesirables who sneer at real ale and Yorkshire pudding I'm definitely voting Reform.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Lest you forget. Honest Bob was the Minister who proudly announced he had successfully filled redundant 5* hotels full of Asylum Seekers.
There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.
How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?
I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.
Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.
I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)
Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as physical evidence.
There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.
Indeed. And that goes for any medico speaking about any minority/group in such terms.
Contrast with Richard Jolly…
There are various other cases that may be of interest. Manoj Sen was struck off this month for anti-Semitic comments on social media. Ragheb Nouman was struck off in 2015 in part for anti-Indian comments to a colleague, but also for incompetence. Mohammad Sohail last year received a 10-month suspension for sending "extremely offensive" comments about Black people to a Black woman. Cameron Hurwood was struck off from being a nurse in 2017 for racist comments, sexual harassment and delivering substandard care. There was a 2023 case in Australia where a doctor was suspended for 12 months for making racist (anti-Aboriginal) comments to a colleague.
Aseem Malhotra, the one who said that the COVID-19 vaccine gave the King and Princess of Wales cancer, has not been struck off, although I believe a complaint is currently going through the system.
Did the King and Pricess of Wales get a different Covid vaccine to the rest of us?
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Good politicians... well, bad politicians as well... I guess I'm saying effective politicians don't just follow the little-thought-through views of the electorate. They persuade the electorate. They respond to the concerns of the electorate (they think immigration has been out of control), but not by just giving them the obvious kneejerk response (saying immigration is still out of control and all immigrants are bad).
I think good politicians are also ones who realise that sometimes the plebs are right.
The cynical ones are the ones who realise that the plebs (who they more likely than not utterly despise) can be played.
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
Oh, the humantay !
It's rather reminiscent of the RAF Valley discussion the other day - where there is no valley at all.
Tourists get confused between RAF Valley and the “Mach Loop” location all the time. They’re about 30 miles apart.
The latter is where the spotters stand on top of the hill and look down at the planes in the, err, valley below.
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
Quite alarming, isn’t it!
The real worry has to be when the professional travel writers become enamoured of AI.
Professional travel writers work is indistinguishable from paid advertisements in that the commissions come from pushing a stay at a place that was given them as a freebie. If they dare to give a place an accurate "warts and all" write up then the commissions dry up very quickly.
lol
If it's just "writing paid adverts", that sounds dead easy. Why not give it a go? Should be a doddle. Then you get free holidays
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Good politicians... well, bad politicians as well... I guess I'm saying effective politicians don't just follow the little-thought-through views of the electorate. They persuade the electorate. They respond to the concerns of the electorate (they think immigration has been out of control), but not by just giving them the obvious kneejerk response (saying immigration is still out of control and all immigrants are bad).
I think good politicians are also ones who realise that sometimes the plebs are right.
Jenrick has taken the media by storm today and certainly made the news
Apparently Badenoch is being interviewed by Beth Rigby from the conference live on Sky at 5.00pm
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Immigration was out of control under the governments Jenrick was involved in. Nothing coherent on increasing infrastructure to match increase in numbers. Courts cut out of some weird cut fetish rather than objectivity. Laws drafted so badly they hardly ever survived legal challenge.
Labour are at least attempting to tackle each of those.
None of that has anything to with lies about seeing white faces.
'Miguel Angel Gongora Meza, founder and director of Evolution Treks Peru, was in a rural Peruvian town preparing for a trek through the Andes when he overheard a curious conversation. Two unaccompanied tourists were chatting amicably about their plans to hike alone in the mountains to the "Sacred Canyon of Humantay".
"They [showed] me the screenshot, confidently written and full of vivid adjectives, [but] it was not true. There is no Sacred Canyon of Humantay!" said Gongora Meza. "The name is a combination of two places that have no relation to the description. The tourist paid nearly $160 (£118) in order to get to a rural road in the environs of Mollepata without a guide or [a destination]. [...] When you [use] a program [like ChatGPT], which combines pictures and names to create a fantasy, then you can find yourself at an altitude of 4,000m without oxygen and [phone] signal."
Oh, the humantay !
It's rather reminiscent of the RAF Valley discussion the other day - where there is no valley at all.
Tourists get confused between RAF Valley and the “Mach Loop” location all the time. They’re about 30 miles apart.
The latter is where the spotters stand on top of the hill and look down at the planes in the, err, valley below.
Russian soldiers mounted part of a BMP-1 turret onto a Moskvich car, turning it into a makeshift assault vehicle.
Russian 'modernization'.
I see things like this, and I know I'm only getting a partial view from the Ukrainian side, but it's kinda amazing that the Russians are still able to fight.
Why?
Broken Back War is a thing.
By the end in 1945, the Germans were towing aircraft with draft horses. To save fuel.
The Japanese were arming the civilian population with sharpened bamboo sticks as spears.
To the Russian Establishment, the war is existential. If they lose, they lose power. The next lot will shoot their predecessors and blame them for the defeat. If they are lucky.
So they will keep going until the end.
I guess the main thing this cobbled together mess of a vehicle doesn't show is that vehicles are not currently important in the war. Russia has prioritised building drones rather than armoured vehicles, and that's probably the right choice.
When I said I was surprised the Russians were still fighting it's less that I'm surprised they haven't given up, and more than I'm surprised that they haven't been swept aside. But that's more to do with the relative importance of drones over other equipment, and the seeming impossibility of advancing without incurring heavy losses in the face of heavy drone activity.
The issue with "immigrants are bad" is it teeters on a tightrope. People may think immigration is bad. They may support deportations. But does that include the doctor treating my Mother? The patient TA at my daughter's school. Aziz in the takeaway? The guy I play football with? My next door neighbour? When you move from the general to the specific that's when a coalition starts to fall apart.
Russian soldiers mounted part of a BMP-1 turret onto a Moskvich car, turning it into a makeshift assault vehicle.
Russian 'modernization'.
I see things like this, and I know I'm only getting a partial view from the Ukrainian side, but it's kinda amazing that the Russians are still able to fight.
Why?
Broken Back War is a thing.
By the end in 1945, the Germans were towing aircraft with draft horses. To save fuel.
The Japanese were arming the civilian population with sharpened bamboo sticks as spears.
To the Russian Establishment, the war is existential. If they lose, they lose power. The next lot will shoot their predecessors and blame them for the defeat. If they are lucky.
So they will keep going until the end.
It's even more existential for Ukraine. But that's true about the disconnect between Russia's interests and Putin's. Same with most of these strongmen. They act for themselves not to improve the lot of their countries and populations.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Good politicians... well, bad politicians as well... I guess I'm saying effective politicians don't just follow the little-thought-through views of the electorate. They persuade the electorate. They respond to the concerns of the electorate (they think immigration has been out of control), but not by just giving them the obvious kneejerk response (saying immigration is still out of control and all immigrants are bad).
I think good politicians are also ones who realise that sometimes the plebs are right.
The cynical ones are the ones who realise that the plebs (who they more likely than not utterly despise) can be played.
Farage fits that perfectly. He used Brexit first and now is using immigration.
However I think an awful of politicians are out of touch with the man on the Clapham omnibus. Brown's famous discombobulation at the 'racist' voter, Blair being shocked about GP access (was it Blair?), politicians generally not knowing how much a pint of milk is etc. Lots of people have shit lives and want to blame someone or something. It used to be the EU, but now that excuse is gone, we have the 'immigrants'. God knows what would happen if Reform did take power and somehow deport 2 million people (considering how may are doing really rather important jobs)...
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Good politicians... well, bad politicians as well... I guess I'm saying effective politicians don't just follow the little-thought-through views of the electorate. They persuade the electorate. They respond to the concerns of the electorate (they think immigration has been out of control), but not by just giving them the obvious kneejerk response (saying immigration is still out of control and all immigrants are bad).
I think good politicians are also ones who realise that sometimes the plebs are right.
Jenrick has taken the media by storm today and certainly made the news
Apparently Badenoch is being interviewed by Beth Rigby from the conference live on Sky at 5.00pm
Of course he has. He's saying what the media want. That isn't a good thing.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Good politicians... well, bad politicians as well... I guess I'm saying effective politicians don't just follow the little-thought-through views of the electorate. They persuade the electorate. They respond to the concerns of the electorate (they think immigration has been out of control), but not by just giving them the obvious kneejerk response (saying immigration is still out of control and all immigrants are bad).
I think good politicians are also ones who realise that sometimes the plebs are right.
You should listen to the plebs about the problems they experience, but plebs aren't necessarily great at coming up with solutions. Politicians should come up with solutions. Politicians also need to take the plebs' contradictory demands and turn that into a coherent approach (e.g., the plebs say immigration is too high, but don't say immigration is too high when you ask them about most of the categories of immigration, like students, high-skilled workers, Ukrainian refugees).
Also, when I say you should listen to the plebs about the problems they experience, don't confuse that with reading social media.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Immigration was out of control under the governments Jenrick was involved in. Nothing coherent on increasing infrastructure to match increase in numbers. Courts cut out of some weird cut fetish rather than objectivity. Laws drafted so badly they hardly ever survived legal challenge.
Labour are at least attempting to tackle each of those.
None of that has anything to with lies about seeing white faces.
"No white faces" is Jenrick's 350 million. Its got him talked about. And the issue is that for all people on PB might decry it, there are places in the UK where there are sizeable ethnic populations and you may well struggle to see a 'white' face. However if you go to most Wiltshire villages you will struggle to see anyone not white.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Immigration was out of control under the governments Jenrick was involved in. Nothing coherent on increasing infrastructure to match increase in numbers. Courts cut out of some weird cut fetish rather than objectivity. Laws drafted so badly they hardly ever survived legal challenge.
Labour are at least attempting to tackle each of those.
None of that has anything to with lies about seeing white faces.
"No white faces" is Jenrick's 350 million. Its got him talked about. And the issue is that for all people on PB might decry it, there are places in the UK where there are sizeable ethnic populations and you may well struggle to see a 'white' face. However if you go to most Wiltshire villages you will struggle to see anyone not white.
Sure, he perhaps isn't racist himself, but sees it as value to make racist comments in order to get attention. And he is favourite to be next leader of the Conservative party.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
And most of us who accept the patriotic need for economic restructuring shuffle away a bit nervously when its consequences look like getting too near us. If you want to know why Mel Stride is planning to not touch the triple lock, look at who votes for his party. Same goes for those who want to leave taxes unraised and those who want to leave public spending uncut.
The politics were hard enough in 2008-10, they are harder still now.
Indeed. There's a good reason why the "economic restructuring" which is wildly popular on PB is exclusively a tax cuts for the well off, benefits and service cuts for the rest kind.
Why should all parties inhabit a space that requires high taxes and high spending in perpetuity? Why is there not a space for a party arguing for a smaller state, lower taxes, and working better with public expenditure?
This is not a message that is just the preserve of the “well off”, as you term it.
The State has shrunk, in many ways.
Let's break down government spending - education, healthcare, defence, pensions etc - and look at how much they were as a percentage of GDP in both 2007 and 2024:
2007/8 2024/5 Change Health 7.1% 9.2% +2.1pp Education 5.6% 4.1% -1.5pp Defence 2.4% 2.1% -0.3pp State pensions 3.5% 5.1% +1.6pp Interest 2.0% 3.1% +1.1pp Pulic order 2.1% 1.9% -0.2pp
As a percentage of GDP, the amount we spend on justice (police, prisons and courts) has fallen by a tenth, defence has dropped more. While education spending has sharply contracted.
By contrast what we spend on oldies has risen shaply. Spending on health has risen by as much as we spend in total on defence! Spending on state pensions has increased by the equivalent of 40% of the education budget.
There is genuine austerity in government. We just don't see it, because we're spending ever more on oldies. (And bear in mind, this excludes all the local government spending on oldies.)
Gold becomes more valuable to Australia than LNG 🇦🇺❤️🥇
📈 Revenues from gold will jump to A$60 billion in 2025-26 amid a record-breaking surge in prices 📉 LNG prices, meanwhile, have softened from the highs of the energy crisis in 2022. Australia is a top LNG exporter https://x.com/SStapczynski/status/1975466464707756216
Though the massive decline in thermal coal revenues says quite a lot about the global energy market.
I suspect it says nations are acquiring gold as they don’t trust the dollar having seen Russian dollar assets seized.
The Tories seem intent on casting themselves into irrelevance by their attempt to out-Reform Reform.
They appear to have missed the fact that there is a gap in the market on economic restructuring/radical reform of the state literally crying out for someone to fill it, and instead are majoring on who can announce the most authoritarian policy/say the most dubious comment.
It is a desperate strategy I believe is doomed to fail. I am not even saying they shouldn’t tack to the right on certain topics, but that should not have been their emphasis. Anyone who wants a strong border policy and wants a culture war is already deserting them for Farage. They cannot offer anything different in that space.
There may be a gap in the market, but how big is it? It's like the post earlier bemoaning the LD's not being Orange Book enough. There's plenty on here up for it. But few in the general population.
And most of us who accept the patriotic need for economic restructuring shuffle away a bit nervously when its consequences look like getting too near us. If you want to know why Mel Stride is planning to not touch the triple lock, look at who votes for his party. Same goes for those who want to leave taxes unraised and those who want to leave public spending uncut.
The politics were hard enough in 2008-10, they are harder still now.
Indeed. There's a good reason why the "economic restructuring" which is wildly popular on PB is exclusively a tax cuts for the well off, benefits and service cuts for the rest kind.
Why should all parties inhabit a space that requires high taxes and high spending in perpetuity? Why is there not a space for a party arguing for a smaller state, lower taxes, and working better with public expenditure?
This is not a message that is just the preserve of the “well off”, as you term it.
The State has shrunk, in many ways.
Let's break down government spending - education, healthcare, defence, pensions etc - and look at how much they were as a percentage of GDP in both 2007 and 2024:
2007/8 2024/5 Change Health 7.1% 9.2% +2.1pp Education 5.6% 4.1% -1.5pp Defence 2.4% 2.1% -0.3pp State pensions 3.5% 5.1% +1.6pp Interest 2.0% 3.1% +1.1pp Pulic order 2.1% 1.9% -0.2pp
As a percentage of GDP, the amount we spend on justice (police, prisons and courts) has fallen by a tenth, defence has dropped more. While education spending has sharply contracted.
By contrast what we spend on oldies has risen shaply. Spending on health has risen by as much as we spend in total on defence! Spending on state pensions has increased by the equivalent of 40% of the education budget.
There is genuine austerity in government. We just don't see it, because we're spending ever more on oldies. (And bear in mind, this excludes all the local government spending on oldies.)
Wowsers. I had no idea spending on Education had shrunk by so much.
I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.
If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.
Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
If Bob was dog whistling for clicks and headlines he can award himself an A*.
It's unusual for a prospective leader of one of the main parties to persuade me *not* to vote for a party he's in charge of before he even gets the job! well done, Jenrick!
I suspect Honest Bob has calculated that for every JosiasJessop he repels he attracts ten Lucy Connollys.
Like it or not, an awful lot of people in the country think Farage is right about immigration. People like my next door neighbour. Not a beer swilling, skinhead, BNP type racist, just someone who think that immigration is out of control.
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
Immigration was out of control under the governments Jenrick was involved in. Nothing coherent on increasing infrastructure to match increase in numbers. Courts cut out of some weird cut fetish rather than objectivity. Laws drafted so badly they hardly ever survived legal challenge.
Labour are at least attempting to tackle each of those.
None of that has anything to with lies about seeing white faces.
"No white faces" is Jenrick's 350 million. Its got him talked about. And the issue is that for all people on PB might decry it, there are places in the UK where there are sizeable ethnic populations and you may well struggle to see a 'white' face. However if you go to most Wiltshire villages you will struggle to see anyone not white.
Somewhat complicated by the fact that Poles et al. are white. Jenrick and hardcore remainers form an odd alliance in considering foreigners less foreign if they are white.
Comments
Then it was pointed out that illegally bridging the setup would be unstoppable and a serious danger (fire, electrocution)
And that slow charging off a 13amp plug was unstoppable
TBF satnav improved if not the idiots doing the driving, but it did take a while.
We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.
Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.
https://x.com/drcrouchback/status/1975551124834033716?s=61
Though isnt the interim judgement that she should not be suspended from practice pending the final judgement?
It is perfectly possible for her Trust to suspend her in the meantime if she has breached Trust policy.
Certainly that's what I would expect at my Trust.
How many more voters can Reform attract from the Tory corpse? A Reform vote share above 40% is feasible if the Tory collapse completes.
Will the Lib Dems show a bit of leg to attract those Tories for whom Farage/Jenrick are anathema? They seem very reluctant to go down that path.
What's the process for winding up a political party? Do the Tories have any assets?
https://www.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/extended-security-updates
Bit late for me - my new Win 11 PC is all assembled at the shop ...
If there’s any serious security issues with W10 in the next year, Microsoft are going to have little choice but to deal with it. The W10 userbase is still way bigger than W11, as people now routinely keep a home PC for 6-7 years rather than 3-4 a decade ago.
As for the tribunal judgement it is not published but one can email and ask nicely.
BTW one thing that has been doing my head in during my current huge clear out is securely erasing files from the hard drive of a Win 7 machine when I'm not the owner and not allowed to use my specialist kit, aka screwdrivers and hammers. At least Win 10 has some sort of a facility.
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/windows-10-is-losing-security-support-in-october-aZV723o24RP9?utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=4661417-C_TN_EM__20251007&mi_u=219607490&mi_ecmp=C_TN_EM__20251007#extend
https://superuser.com/questions/456456/make-a-user-account-an-administrator-account-in-windows-7
https://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/429975-safe-use-windows-7-2025-a.html
Try that, and see if you like it.
It was a flip comment not expecting a serious reply.
(FWIW, my own experience of doctors ranges from the exceptionally good, to the pretty damn bad.)
Gold becomes more valuable to Australia than LNG
🇦🇺❤️🥇
📈 Revenues from gold will jump to A$60 billion in 2025-26 amid a record-breaking surge in prices
📉 LNG prices, meanwhile, have softened from the highs of the energy crisis in 2022. Australia is a top LNG exporter
https://x.com/SStapczynski/status/1975466464707756216
Though the massive decline in thermal coal revenues says quite a lot about the global energy market.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/czjvzmknv0lt
Oh, hang on:
"Before and after: How Gaza looks after two years of war"
Trump's new acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan has recruited prosecutors from outside her office to take James Comey to trial, after being unable to find any federal prosecutors in her own office willing to pursue the charges, according to two people familiar with the selections.
https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1975543116296786242
Though they tend to possess more self confidence than the average human.
The wisdom of it existing under FPTP is another matter.
Russian 'modernization'.
But the Russian economy - now Ukraine has started targeting oil and energy installations - is beginning to show some real signs of problems. Shortages of petrol and diesel in what is supposed to be the world's third largest oil producer will start to weigh on industrial production, and on the ability to move men and materiel to the front.
(Also, presumably, the Conservative Party doesn't block prisoners from its leadership elections...)
I am not suggesting he is wrong or right, but if you want to get elected you need votes. And you need enough to get you a majority.
This was always a risk, the Tories seeking voters who have no intent on returning to a party that they believe failed them last time round
To be fair to Bob, the Conservative Party Conference was looking irrelevant. He has spiced up the narrative and now everyone is talking about the Tories who it would appear are in tune with the voter and despise "foreigners".
It's potentially a bit worrying that the Ukrainians have been so quick to go back on the offensive themselves. Without an answer to FPV drones on the front line any attempt to advance will incur heavy losses in men and equipment.
Broken Back War is a thing.
By the end in 1945, the Germans were towing aircraft with draft horses. To save fuel.
The Japanese were arming the civilian population with sharpened bamboo sticks as spears.
To the Russian Establishment, the war is existential. If they lose, they lose power. The next lot will shoot their predecessors and blame them for the defeat. If they are lucky.
So they will keep going until the end.
https://news.sky.com/video/robert-jenrick-on-hotels-in-2022-in-response-to-overcrowding-at-migrant-centre-13415364
If it's just "writing paid adverts", that sounds dead easy. Why not give it a go? Should be a doddle. Then you get free holidays
Apparently Badenoch is being interviewed by Beth Rigby from the conference live on Sky at 5.00pm
Labour are at least attempting to tackle each of those.
None of that has anything to with lies about seeing white faces.
new thread
It was when Wild West Hero was rocking the charts
When I said I was surprised the Russians were still fighting it's less that I'm surprised they haven't given up, and more than I'm surprised that they haven't been swept aside. But that's more to do with the relative importance of drones over other equipment, and the seeming impossibility of advancing without incurring heavy losses in the face of heavy drone activity.
People may think immigration is bad. They may support deportations.
But does that include the doctor treating my Mother? The patient TA at my daughter's school. Aziz in the takeaway? The guy I play football with? My next door neighbour?
When you move from the general to the specific that's when a coalition starts to fall apart.
However I think an awful of politicians are out of touch with the man on the Clapham omnibus. Brown's famous discombobulation at the 'racist' voter, Blair being shocked about GP access (was it Blair?), politicians generally not knowing how much a pint of milk is etc. Lots of people have shit lives and want to blame someone or something. It used to be the EU, but now that excuse is gone, we have the 'immigrants'. God knows what would happen if Reform did take power and somehow deport 2 million people (considering how may are doing really rather important jobs)...
That isn't a good thing.
Also, when I say you should listen to the plebs about the problems they experience, don't confuse that with reading social media.
(What made me laugh was their hope that ID cards would help to prevent 'errors'.)
Let's break down government spending - education, healthcare, defence, pensions etc - and look at how much they were as a percentage of GDP in both 2007 and 2024: As a percentage of GDP, the amount we spend on justice (police, prisons and courts) has fallen by a tenth, defence has dropped more. While education spending has sharply contracted.
By contrast what we spend on oldies has risen shaply. Spending on health has risen by as much as we spend in total on defence! Spending on state pensions has increased by the equivalent of 40% of the education budget.
There is genuine austerity in government. We just don't see it, because we're spending ever more on oldies. (And bear in mind, this excludes all the local government spending on oldies.)
I don’t think that’s going to win any awards for quality of excuses…