The Reform accounts are going hard on Polanski and the trans issue, seeing it as a weak point, where he looks less straightforward.
I'm not sure that'll work, thoigh, because most people have material priorities. If he looks like the only left alternative and YourParty is still in the doldrums, it won't be the central issue.
Your party held a rally last night and Zarah Sultana apologised profusely for the membership cock up.
Surely Your Party is dead in the water now as the Greens have stolen a march on them.
They’re probably better merging and the Greens going all in on Corbyn style hard left politics. Gaza/Trans/Landlordism/wealth tax etc etc.
It will alienate the Home Counties greens but they will reap dividends in the inner cities.
Sultana wants to leave NATO on the grounds that it's imperialist.
Curiously she's never said that about Russia.
Tbf I don’t think she wants the UK to join the Russian Federation.
"Jewish donors have been the No. 1 funding mechanism of radical open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits. This is a beast created by secular Jews and now they're coming for Jews, and they're like, "What on Earth happened?"
"And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits, it's the movies, it's Hollywood, it's all of it."
And in another episode:
"Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years.
[…]
"Until you cleanse that ideology from the hierarchy in the academic elite of the West, there will not be a safe future. I'm not going to say Israel won't exist, but Israel will be in jeopardy as long as the Western children, children of the West, are being taught, with primarily Jewish dollars, subsidizing it, to view everything through oppressor oppressed dynamic. Until you shed that ideology, you will not be able to build the case for Israel, because they view Israel as an oppressor."
'De mortuis nil nisi bonum' and all that but two things stand out about this man to me: Firstly that a range of his opinions are profoundly disturbing.
Secondly, and unnoticed and intellectually important is this: he majored on free and open debate and discussion. But in fact his entire emphasis is on him, Kirk, persuading his audience that he is right with no emphasis at all on the the thought that he could learn from them or be wrong.
Socrates he was not.
You mean the Socrates who claimed he was just having a debate when he attacked broad based democracy.
The Socrates who, a large group of his pupils were so enthusiastic about following the dictatorial system of another state (traditional enemy of Athens) that they formed a Quisling government when said enemy defeated Athens?
Said pupils then illegally arrested and murdered opponents and launched a systemic campaign against immigrants within Athens?
'When authoritarians seize power, it is crucial to recognize courageous defenders of freedom who rise and resist,' the Norwegian Nobel Committee said as it announced Maria Corina Machado as the winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize
"Jewish donors have been the No. 1 funding mechanism of radical open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits. This is a beast created by secular Jews and now they're coming for Jews, and they're like, "What on Earth happened?"
"And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits, it's the movies, it's Hollywood, it's all of it."
And in another episode:
"Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years.
[…]
"Until you cleanse that ideology from the hierarchy in the academic elite of the West, there will not be a safe future. I'm not going to say Israel won't exist, but Israel will be in jeopardy as long as the Western children, children of the West, are being taught, with primarily Jewish dollars, subsidizing it, to view everything through oppressor oppressed dynamic. Until you shed that ideology, you will not be able to build the case for Israel, because they view Israel as an oppressor."
'De mortuis nil nisi bonum' and all that but two things stand out about this man to me: Firstly that a range of his opinions are profoundly disturbing.
Secondly, and unnoticed and intellectually important is this: he majored on free and open debate and discussion. But in fact his entire emphasis is on him, Kirk, persuading his audience that he is right with no emphasis at all on the the thought that he could learn from them or be wrong.
Socrates he was not.
You mean the Socrates who claimed he was just having a debate when he attacked broad based democracy.
The Socrates who, a large group of his pupils were so enthusiastic about following the dictatorial system of another state (traditional enemy of Athens) that they formed a Quisling government when said enemy defeated Athens?
Said pupils then illegally arrested and murdered opponents and launched a systemic campaign against immigrants within Athens?
On the other hand, they're serving a usual function. No one else is making some of the kind of perfectly valid case that Polanski was making on QT, that billionaires are helping place all the blame on minorities from structural social and economic issues since Thatcherism.
Neither Starmer, or particularly the Lib Dens, are drawing attention to this reality, and YourParty seems not be functioning yet.
The result is that the public sense of who to hold accountable is gradually being drawn further and further to the right, so he's a useful corrective.
The problem with the Greens is that they are antediluvian, and their policy proposals are crap.
I like "abolish landlords". It's a solution to the problem of too many wealthy rentiers. It's not the solution I would have picked, but it recognises the problem and implements a solution. It's much better than the learned helplessness of Labour,
No it is theft and basically communism and many want to rent privately and not from the state
Is this the first terrorist use of drones? A worrying development.
No, as they weren't competent enough to get that far. But given the vast numbers now being produced, it's only a matter of time before someone more organised has a go.
"Jewish donors have been the No. 1 funding mechanism of radical open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits. This is a beast created by secular Jews and now they're coming for Jews, and they're like, "What on Earth happened?"
"And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits, it's the movies, it's Hollywood, it's all of it."
And in another episode:
"Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years.
[…]
"Until you cleanse that ideology from the hierarchy in the academic elite of the West, there will not be a safe future. I'm not going to say Israel won't exist, but Israel will be in jeopardy as long as the Western children, children of the West, are being taught, with primarily Jewish dollars, subsidizing it, to view everything through oppressor oppressed dynamic. Until you shed that ideology, you will not be able to build the case for Israel, because they view Israel as an oppressor."
'De mortuis nil nisi bonum' and all that but two things stand out about this man to me: Firstly that a range of his opinions are profoundly disturbing.
Secondly, and unnoticed and intellectually important is this: he majored on free and open debate and discussion. But in fact his entire emphasis is on him, Kirk, persuading his audience that he is right with no emphasis at all on the the thought that he could learn from them or be wrong.
Socrates he was not.
You mean the Socrates who claimed he was just having a debate when he attacked broad based democracy.
The Socrates who, a large group of his pupils were so enthusiastic about following the dictatorial system of another state (traditional enemy of Athens) that they formed a Quisling government when said enemy defeated Athens?
Said pupils then illegally arrested and murdered opponents and launched a systemic campaign against immigrants within Athens?
That Socrates?
You have fixed the reference correctly as to the person (one of many) I allege that Kirk was not.
The Reform accounts are going hard on Polanski and the trans issue, seeing it as a weak point, where he looks less straightforward.
I'm not sure that'll work, thoigh, because most people have material priorities. If he looks like the only left alternative and YourParty is still in the doldrums, it won't be the central issue.
Your party held a rally last night and Zarah Sultana apologised profusely for the membership cock up.
Surely Your Party is dead in the water now as the Greens have stolen a march on them.
They’re probably better merging and the Greens going all in on Corbyn style hard left politics. Gaza/Trans/Landlordism/wealth tax etc etc.
It will alienate the Home Counties greens but they will reap dividends in the inner cities.
Sultana wants to leave NATO on the grounds that it's imperialist.
Curiously she's never said that about Russia.
Tbf I don’t think she wants the UK to join the Russian Federation.
She'd happily stand on the sidelines as the Russian Federation expands westwards, by other means.
"Jewish donors have been the No. 1 funding mechanism of radical open-border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions and nonprofits. This is a beast created by secular Jews and now they're coming for Jews, and they're like, "What on Earth happened?"
"And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits, it's the movies, it's Hollywood, it's all of it."
And in another episode:
"Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years.
[…]
"Until you cleanse that ideology from the hierarchy in the academic elite of the West, there will not be a safe future. I'm not going to say Israel won't exist, but Israel will be in jeopardy as long as the Western children, children of the West, are being taught, with primarily Jewish dollars, subsidizing it, to view everything through oppressor oppressed dynamic. Until you shed that ideology, you will not be able to build the case for Israel, because they view Israel as an oppressor."
'De mortuis nil nisi bonum' and all that but two things stand out about this man to me: Firstly that a range of his opinions are profoundly disturbing.
Secondly, and unnoticed and intellectually important is this: he majored on free and open debate and discussion. But in fact his entire emphasis is on him, Kirk, persuading his audience that he is right with no emphasis at all on the the thought that he could learn from them or be wrong.
Socrates he was not.
You mean the Socrates who claimed he was just having a debate when he attacked broad based democracy.
The Socrates who, a large group of his pupils were so enthusiastic about following the dictatorial system of another state (traditional enemy of Athens) that they formed a Quisling government when said enemy defeated Athens?
Said pupils then illegally arrested and murdered opponents and launched a systemic campaign against immigrants within Athens?
Clearly Kemi needed some sort of rabbit out of the hat and as the poll shows cutting Stamp Duty is welcomed by most voters. I don't expect it to see a dramatic change in the polls but it should get the Tories back up to 20%+. Even FON, the best pollster for Reform, had a 3% swing from Reform to Conservative yesterday.
The biggest boost to the Tories will be in London and the Home Counties where house prices are highest. Last night's local by elections were mainly not in those areas
Are you sure the voter has already forgotten your team was in Government between 2010 and 2024?
Labour are making a very good attempt at doing just that !!!!!!!!!!!
So if Tucker is having a go at Trump he’s a sage, but the other 99% of the time he’s a crazy conspiracy theorist?
If he's losing the conspiracy nutters who else does he have? The Epstein stuff has holed him and I've also got videos of that Theo Von guy getting upset by ICE.
You’re right on the Epstein stuff, that’s gone down really badly with the base, they were told they’d be seeing the Epstein files and they haven’t turned up. The base are pretty pissed with Pam Bondi for her comments on “hate speech” as well.
The likes of Joe Rogan and Theo Von are both pretty centrist comics, despite them both voting for Trump last time out. They’ve both made negative comments on execution of immigration raids, while being supportive of the concept. They’re a pretty good barometer for the general feeling in the country I think.
As for Tucker, everything he says needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Like so many journalists now working for himself and paid to have an opinion, he doesn’t make factual stuff up but often leaves out a lot of context, and also knows that the wildest opinions drive social media “engagement”.
I'm not convinced by your definition of "centrist". Back in September, you described Charlie Kirk as "a middle-of-the-road conservative Christian youth movement leader". Charlie Kirk absolutely did not deserve to die, but he was racist and anti-Semitic, so it seems odd to describe him as "middle-of-the-road", as it seems odd to describe Rogan as "centrist". I suggest that you are still so deep in a MAGA social media bubble that you are struggling to discern reality.
Oh dear.
Rogan said he’d never voted Republican before last year, and that he voted for Obama. He’s described himself as centre-left, but said that the Democrats had gone crazy over censorship and gender stuff.
Von is slightly to the right of Rogan, but has also described himself as pretty centrist.
Charlie Kirk was not racist, there’s no evidence whatsoever of that.
Rogan has supported vaccine misinformation, HIV denialism and denies climate change. He’s said Jews are “interested in money”. Are these centrist views?
As for Kirk, start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Race and work down. The man was deeply racist and an anti-Semite. He explicitly said the Great Replacement Theory conspiracy was true and he blamed Jews for it.
Many of Kirk's views were deeply repulsive. You don't graduate from Princeton, and get a law doctorate from Harvard, as Michelle Obama did, without possessing a lot of brainpower.
We hear lots about the casual and gratuitous use of 'racist' by the left. And ok there's some truth in that. But less discussed and at least equally prevalent is the opposite tendency on the right whereby unless a person goes round in a tee-shirt emblazoned with "KKK White Power!" they can't in fairness be described as a racist.
Don’t worry, the vast majority of us on the centre right think the KKK are racist. Pretty much any organised group of the right is very quick to disassociate themselves from anyone who crosses the line, including groups such as Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point.
Personally my line would be Nigel Farage on the right and Jeremy Corbyn on the left, both of whom are not racist but have been known to associate with those who are.
Well that's good to hear about the KKK! But Douglas Seal is right that it's a spectrum and for me there's a fair bit that merits being tagged 'racist' before we get to that extreme end of it. Kirk is a case in point. To arrive at a 'not racist' verdict there given the things he said requires a heroic amount of slack and context and benefits of doubts. But, ok, to go back to my original point, he was never spotted in the tee shirt.
So if Tucker is having a go at Trump he’s a sage, but the other 99% of the time he’s a crazy conspiracy theorist?
If he's losing the conspiracy nutters who else does he have? The Epstein stuff has holed him and I've also got videos of that Theo Von guy getting upset by ICE.
You’re right on the Epstein stuff, that’s gone down really badly with the base, they were told they’d be seeing the Epstein files and they haven’t turned up. The base are pretty pissed with Pam Bondi for her comments on “hate speech” as well.
The likes of Joe Rogan and Theo Von are both pretty centrist comics, despite them both voting for Trump last time out. They’ve both made negative comments on execution of immigration raids, while being supportive of the concept. They’re a pretty good barometer for the general feeling in the country I think.
As for Tucker, everything he says needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Like so many journalists now working for himself and paid to have an opinion, he doesn’t make factual stuff up but often leaves out a lot of context, and also knows that the wildest opinions drive social media “engagement”.
I'm not convinced by your definition of "centrist". Back in September, you described Charlie Kirk as "a middle-of-the-road conservative Christian youth movement leader". Charlie Kirk absolutely did not deserve to die, but he was racist and anti-Semitic, so it seems odd to describe him as "middle-of-the-road", as it seems odd to describe Rogan as "centrist". I suggest that you are still so deep in a MAGA social media bubble that you are struggling to discern reality.
Oh dear.
Rogan said he’d never voted Republican before last year, and that he voted for Obama. He’s described himself as centre-left, but said that the Democrats had gone crazy over censorship and gender stuff.
Von is slightly to the right of Rogan, but has also described himself as pretty centrist.
Charlie Kirk was not racist, there’s no evidence whatsoever of that.
Rogan has supported vaccine misinformation, HIV denialism and denies climate change. He’s said Jews are “interested in money”. Are these centrist views?
As for Kirk, start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Race and work down. The man was deeply racist and an anti-Semite. He explicitly said the Great Replacement Theory conspiracy was true and he blamed Jews for it.
Many of Kirk's views were deeply repulsive. You don't graduate from Princeton, and get a law doctorate from Harvard, as Michelle Obama did, without possessing a lot of brainpower.
We hear lots about the casual and gratuitous use of 'racist' by the left. And ok there's some truth in that. But less discussed and at least equally prevalent is the opposite tendency on the right whereby unless a person goes round in a tee-shirt emblazoned with "KKK White Power!” they can't in fairness be described as a racist.
And even then..
On a parochial but related note there’s a weird push by one of the more gammony hacks on the Herald to reframe the Orange Order as a poor persecuted lot who are trying to reach out to other faiths. Presumably that reaching out involves beating their drums outside Catholic churches.
Interesting. But paywalled. What is proposed? To turn the music down to below 11 rather than the default level outside the RC place, or even change to Ave Maria gratia plenis?
Edit: tbf they lifted their ban on entering RC churches a few years back, after two UU politicians got stick for attending a RC funeral as part of their official duties in government.
So if Tucker is having a go at Trump he’s a sage, but the other 99% of the time he’s a crazy conspiracy theorist?
If he's losing the conspiracy nutters who else does he have? The Epstein stuff has holed him and I've also got videos of that Theo Von guy getting upset by ICE.
You’re right on the Epstein stuff, that’s gone down really badly with the base, they were told they’d be seeing the Epstein files and they haven’t turned up. The base are pretty pissed with Pam Bondi for her comments on “hate speech” as well.
The likes of Joe Rogan and Theo Von are both pretty centrist comics, despite them both voting for Trump last time out. They’ve both made negative comments on execution of immigration raids, while being supportive of the concept. They’re a pretty good barometer for the general feeling in the country I think.
As for Tucker, everything he says needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Like so many journalists now working for himself and paid to have an opinion, he doesn’t make factual stuff up but often leaves out a lot of context, and also knows that the wildest opinions drive social media “engagement”.
I'm not convinced by your definition of "centrist". Back in September, you described Charlie Kirk as "a middle-of-the-road conservative Christian youth movement leader". Charlie Kirk absolutely did not deserve to die, but he was racist and anti-Semitic, so it seems odd to describe him as "middle-of-the-road", as it seems odd to describe Rogan as "centrist". I suggest that you are still so deep in a MAGA social media bubble that you are struggling to discern reality.
Oh dear.
Rogan said he’d never voted Republican before last year, and that he voted for Obama. He’s described himself as centre-left, but said that the Democrats had gone crazy over censorship and gender stuff.
Von is slightly to the right of Rogan, but has also described himself as pretty centrist.
Charlie Kirk was not racist, there’s no evidence whatsoever of that.
"You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."
Totally out of context, and referring to specific people who were saying they were diversity hires and proud of it.
Full quote: If we would have said three weeks ago [...] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist. But now they're comin' out and they're saying it for us! They're comin' out and they're saying, "I'm only here because of affirmative action.
Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.
The internet is absolutely full of these, as there’s thousands of hours of recordings of Kirk speaking. I’ve yet to see any evidence that he was actually racist. He didn’t say that black women are stupid, he said that Joy Reid was stupid. Which she is.
If you had limited your reply to the first para ("If we would have... affirmative action") I would have believed you, since he was mocking what somebody else said. But his second para ("Yeah, we know...taken somewhat seriously") seems to be his own sincere opinion, instead of mocking another's.
Well, quite. It again begs the question, given we've had two long periods of Conservative or Conservative-led Government in the last 45 years or so, why Stamp Duty was never abolished by Howe, Lawson, Lamont, Clarke or all the other Conservative Chancellors.
The conclusion is Stamp Duty must fulfill some form of function, possibly as a regulatory mechanism in the housing market preventing prices rising even more and making the goal of home ownership so beloved by Tories as a souce of future voters even more unachievable or it's been a nice little earner (as Mr Daley would have said) for the Treasury.
Given first time purchasers are already free of stamp duty up to the value of £300k, Badenoch's plan, from which she cannot now extricate herself, and which only applies to England and Northern Ireland, is clearly aimed further up the property market. The truth is as prices have risen, more have been caught - the majority of purchases would be in the 5% category but once you get to between £925k and £1.5 million it's 10% so the amount of stamp duty payable on a £920k purchase would be £46k and the amount on a £930k purchase would be £93k if I've done it right.
That brings in an increasing number of property purchases particularly in southern LD held constituencies which I suspect is the prime target for this policy but the stamp duty rate also acts as a barrier on house price inflation.
It was fine - 1% I think - until Brown lifted it to 12% at the top end in one of his “soak the rich without increasing income tax” phases
It’s now become an impediment to efficient allocation of economic activity.
As to why the Tories didn’t abolish it previously they were initially focused on reducing the deficit (under Osborne) so needed the revenue; they were then focused on brexit and Covid both of which were higher priorities than tax reform.
Here's an interesting question I'll adapt from another message board I lurk on.
Which PBer, past or present, would make the most interesting subject for a Louis Theroux documentary?
Is this a message board that's more orange than the Donald ?
Indeed.
It's a shame that board is basically going through a very slow lingering death. I've been on it for about 12 years and there hasn't been much genuine new blood
It’s a very 2000s style board (like this one TBH) and things have moved on. I’ve never regularly commented there.
What is the name of this board please?
Roobarbs.😉
I believe you may be fibbing me. Would you care for an actual answer?
Sorry, I am, it fitted the bill and is a board made up mainly of cranky middle aged white guys
Good, you cannot have any Tom, Dick, or Mary being able to walk in.
JPMorgan requiring biometric data for staff access to new headquarters
New York bank is imposing eye and fingerprint scans amid heightened security concerns at corporate offices
JPMorgan Chase has told staff moving into the US bank’s new multibillion-dollar Manhattan headquarters they must share their biometric data to access the building, overriding a prior plan for voluntary enrolment.
Employees who have started work at its 270 Park Avenue skyscraper since August have received emails saying biometric access is “required”, according to a communication seen by the Financial Times. This allows people to scan their fingerprints or eye instead of ID badges to get through the lobby security gates.
JPMorgan declined to comment. The bank’s headquarters, which cost a reported $3bn, will eventually house about 10,000 employees once it is fully open later this year.
The goal is to make access to the building more secure and convenient. There are exemptions for some employees who can still use their badge to enter the building, though it was not clear who would receive them.
It comes amid heightened security concerns across corporate offices in New York following a deadly shooting at 345 Park Avenue in July, a few blocks up the street from JPMorgan’s offices.
Charlie Javice just went to jail for seven years for defrauding them of $175m. Plus expenses,
Because of a clause in the M&A docs, JPM has to pick up Charlie Javice’s legal bill for defrauding them. She’s run up $115M in bills. Absolutely incredible. https://x.com/yrechtman/status/1976320602043724015
I suspect JPM refuses to pay the lawyers and lets them sue for the fees. Argument is the contract was the result of fraudulent actions and therefore they shouldn’t benefit from it
< Odd that Reform are going for him. I'd have thought it would be in their interest for him to stick around. It should be Labour piling in on him on the trans issue. >
I think there are also a lot of right-populist and Russian bot accounts on twitter. Both their and Reform"s A.I. probably think they have identified the right point to pull him up on.
Yes, the pile on from trolls and Reform's puppetmasters show that they are beginning to wake up to the threat that Polanski brings. Raising the profile of Reform's Russian bribery conviction and plans to tax the oligarchs has them worried.
Support for Trans rights is much higher than Green polling, so not a very effective attack line. It might play well the Red Wall, but not in Green targets. Being seen as the enemy of Reform is going to do Polanski as much harm as throwing Brer rabbit in to the briar patch.
Yes, I foresee a lot of big and public contests of views between Green and and Reform coming up, with last night being the beginning.
The Manchester elite gathered outside Manchester cathedral after Ricky Hatton's funeral service just finished there. The Rooneys, Liam Gallagher, Corrie stars etc. Band playing as the herse prepares to leave
You have a problem, don't you, if the Cons are going this route. You'll have nobody to vote for. Disenfranchised, in a sense.
I said the other day if at the next election Jenrick is leader or in a senior position then I’ll for the first time in my life campaign against the Tories.
The Reform accounts are going hard on Polanski and the trans issue, seeing it as a weak point, where he looks less straightforward.
I'm not sure that'll work, thoigh, because most people have material priorities. If he looks like the only left alternative and YourParty is still in the doldrums, it won't be the central issue.
Your party held a rally last night and Zarah Sultana apologised profusely for the membership cock up.
Surely Your Party is dead in the water now as the Greens have stolen a march on them.
They’re probably better merging and the Greens going all in on Corbyn style hard left politics. Gaza/Trans/Landlordism/wealth tax etc etc.
It will alienate the Home Counties greens but they will reap dividends in the inner cities.
I'm not sure what or why they're delaying so much. A lot of it seens to have been to do with the conflict between Sultana and the older men in the party, but they'll have to get a move on because the Greens are lifting up their profile fast.
Good, you cannot have any Tom, Dick, or Mary being able to walk in.
JPMorgan requiring biometric data for staff access to new headquarters
New York bank is imposing eye and fingerprint scans amid heightened security concerns at corporate offices
JPMorgan Chase has told staff moving into the US bank’s new multibillion-dollar Manhattan headquarters they must share their biometric data to access the building, overriding a prior plan for voluntary enrolment.
Employees who have started work at its 270 Park Avenue skyscraper since August have received emails saying biometric access is “required”, according to a communication seen by the Financial Times. This allows people to scan their fingerprints or eye instead of ID badges to get through the lobby security gates.
JPMorgan declined to comment. The bank’s headquarters, which cost a reported $3bn, will eventually house about 10,000 employees once it is fully open later this year.
The goal is to make access to the building more secure and convenient. There are exemptions for some employees who can still use their badge to enter the building, though it was not clear who would receive them.
It comes amid heightened security concerns across corporate offices in New York following a deadly shooting at 345 Park Avenue in July, a few blocks up the street from JPMorgan’s offices.
Charlie Javice just went to jail for seven years for defrauding them of $175m. Plus expenses,
Because of a clause in the M&A docs, JPM has to pick up Charlie Javice’s legal bill for defrauding them. She’s run up $115M in bills. Absolutely incredible. https://x.com/yrechtman/status/1976320602043724015
$115 million for lawyers is an utter bargain.
JPM had to pay their own lawyers another $175m in the same case.
This story brings some real joy into the world.
$280 million for lawyers, what's not to love?
We all love lawyers who can’t add up their own bills.
My favourite case I was ever involved with was two businessmen who set up their own joint venture.
Businessman 1 provided the sales whilst businessman 2 provided the accounts/admin.
They had a major falling out, businessman 1 sued the bank for paying out cheques that weren't to mandate, bank brought in businessman 2 as a part 20 defendant.
The cheques were for legitimate services and some of them paid businessman 1 and his businesses but crucially most weren't to mandate (any payments over £25,000 needed two signatories and most of them had only one).
The total payments came to around £600,000 but neither side wanted to back down, the legal costs came to over £2 million as the dispute lasted years.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
< Odd that Reform are going for him. I'd have thought it would be in their interest for him to stick around. It should be Labour piling in on him on the trans issue. >
I think there are also a lot of right-populist and Russian bot accounts on twitter. Both their and Reform"s A.I. probably think they have identified the right point to pull him up on.
Yes, the pile on from trolls and Reform's puppetmasters show that they are beginning to wake up to the threat that Polanski brings. Raising the profile of Reform's Russian bribery conviction and plans to tax the oligarchs has them worried.
Support for Trans rights is much higher than Green polling, so not a very effective attack line. It might play well the Red Wall, but not in Green targets. Being seen as the enemy of Reform is going to do Polanski as much harm as throwing Brer rabbit in to the briar patch.
Yes. I foresee a lot of big and public contests of views between Green and and Reform coming up, with last night being the beginning.
The one thing which could motivate me to vote Reform would be being somewhere which was a two horse race between Reform and Green. (Or Reform and Corbyn/Sultana/the Islamosectarians)
So if Tucker is having a go at Trump he’s a sage, but the other 99% of the time he’s a crazy conspiracy theorist?
If he's losing the conspiracy nutters who else does he have? The Epstein stuff has holed him and I've also got videos of that Theo Von guy getting upset by ICE.
You’re right on the Epstein stuff, that’s gone down really badly with the base, they were told they’d be seeing the Epstein files and they haven’t turned up. The base are pretty pissed with Pam Bondi for her comments on “hate speech” as well.
The likes of Joe Rogan and Theo Von are both pretty centrist comics, despite them both voting for Trump last time out. They’ve both made negative comments on execution of immigration raids, while being supportive of the concept. They’re a pretty good barometer for the general feeling in the country I think.
As for Tucker, everything he says needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Like so many journalists now working for himself and paid to have an opinion, he doesn’t make factual stuff up but often leaves out a lot of context, and also knows that the wildest opinions drive social media “engagement”.
I'm not convinced by your definition of "centrist". Back in September, you described Charlie Kirk as "a middle-of-the-road conservative Christian youth movement leader". Charlie Kirk absolutely did not deserve to die, but he was racist and anti-Semitic, so it seems odd to describe him as "middle-of-the-road", as it seems odd to describe Rogan as "centrist". I suggest that you are still so deep in a MAGA social media bubble that you are struggling to discern reality.
Oh dear.
Rogan said he’d never voted Republican before last year, and that he voted for Obama. He’s described himself as centre-left, but said that the Democrats had gone crazy over censorship and gender stuff.
Von is slightly to the right of Rogan, but has also described himself as pretty centrist.
Charlie Kirk was not racist, there’s no evidence whatsoever of that.
he was on record as saying black people aren't as intelligent as white people
Well us whities have got Leon on out side, that's one huge IQ bumping up our average.
You have a problem, don't you, if the Cons are going this route. You'll have nobody to vote for. Disenfranchised, in a sense.
I said the other day if at the next election Jenrick is leader or in a senior position then I’ll for the first time in my life campaign against the Tories.
You did though vote LD in 2019 when Boris was Conservative leader and PM.
< Odd that Reform are going for him. I'd have thought it would be in their interest for him to stick around. It should be Labour piling in on him on the trans issue. >
I think there are also a lot of right-populist and Russian bot accounts on twitter. Both their and Reform"s A.I. probably think they have identified the right point to pull him up on.
Yes, the pile on from trolls and Reform's puppetmasters show that they are beginning to wake up to the threat that Polanski brings. Raising the profile of Reform's Russian bribery conviction and plans to tax the oligarchs has them worried.
Support for Trans rights is much higher than Green polling, so not a very effective attack line. It might play well the Red Wall, but not in Green targets. Being seen as the enemy of Reform is going to do Polanski as much harm as throwing Brer rabbit in to the briar patch.
Yes. I foresee a lot of big and public contests of views between Green and and Reform coming up, with last night being the beginning.
The one thing which could motivate me to vote Reform would be being somewhere which was a two horse race between Reform and Green. (Or Reform and Corbyn/Sultana/the Islamosectarians)
Very few such seats or wards likely except in maybe rural Suffolk or Herefordshire.
I would also vote Reform over Green or even Starmer Labour over
The Manchester elite gathered outside Manchester cathedral after Ricky Hatton's funeral service just finished there. The Rooneys, Liam Gallagher, Corrie stars etc. Band playing as the herse prepares to leave
Frank Bruno, Barry McGuigan, Paddy McGuiness there too..and Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham
< Odd that Reform are going for him. I'd have thought it would be in their interest for him to stick around. It should be Labour piling in on him on the trans issue. >
I think there are also a lot of right-populist and Russian bot accounts on twitter. Both their and Reform"s A.I. probably think they have identified the right point to pull him up on.
Yes, the pile on from trolls and Reform's puppetmasters show that they are beginning to wake up to the threat that Polanski brings. Raising the profile of Reform's Russian bribery conviction and plans to tax the oligarchs has them worried.
Support for Trans rights is much higher than Green polling, so not a very effective attack line. It might play well the Red Wall, but not in Green targets. Being seen as the enemy of Reform is going to do Polanski as much harm as throwing Brer rabbit in to the briar patch.
Yes. I foresee a lot of big and public contests of views between Green and and Reform coming up, with last night being the beginning.
The one thing which could motivate me to vote Reform would be being somewhere which was a two horse race between Reform and Green. (Or Reform and Corbyn/Sultana/the Islamosectarians)
Very few such seats or wards likely except in maybe rural Suffolk or Herefordshire.
I would also vote Reform over Green or even Starmer Labour over
I think there've been a few RefGrn battles in the local by elections recently? Which itself is depressing - both valid shades of opinion, but polarisation between the far peft and the far right isn't healthy. Like America or France.
Also, top marks for originality of syntax in that last line. Confusing, but I enjoyed it.
Personally, ina two horse race, I wouldn't vote Reform Starmer Labour over - I'd vote for my favourite no-hoper.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Does that matter? How was Churchill regarded before becoming a war-time PM?
You have a problem, don't you, if the Cons are going this route. You'll have nobody to vote for. Disenfranchised, in a sense.
I said the other day if at the next election Jenrick is leader or in a senior position then I’ll for the first time in my life campaign against the Tories.
You did though vote LD in 2019 when Boris was Conservative leader and PM.
But I live in a Lab/LD marginal and my vote was to try and stop a Corbynite winning.
So if Tucker is having a go at Trump he’s a sage, but the other 99% of the time he’s a crazy conspiracy theorist?
If he's losing the conspiracy nutters who else does he have? The Epstein stuff has holed him and I've also got videos of that Theo Von guy getting upset by ICE.
You’re right on the Epstein stuff, that’s gone down really badly with the base, they were told they’d be seeing the Epstein files and they haven’t turned up. The base are pretty pissed with Pam Bondi for her comments on “hate speech” as well.
The likes of Joe Rogan and Theo Von are both pretty centrist comics, despite them both voting for Trump last time out. They’ve both made negative comments on execution of immigration raids, while being supportive of the concept. They’re a pretty good barometer for the general feeling in the country I think.
As for Tucker, everything he says needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Like so many journalists now working for himself and paid to have an opinion, he doesn’t make factual stuff up but often leaves out a lot of context, and also knows that the wildest opinions drive social media “engagement”.
I'm not convinced by your definition of "centrist". Back in September, you described Charlie Kirk as "a middle-of-the-road conservative Christian youth movement leader". Charlie Kirk absolutely did not deserve to die, but he was racist and anti-Semitic, so it seems odd to describe him as "middle-of-the-road", as it seems odd to describe Rogan as "centrist". I suggest that you are still so deep in a MAGA social media bubble that you are struggling to discern reality.
Oh dear.
Rogan said he’d never voted Republican before last year, and that he voted for Obama. He’s described himself as centre-left, but said that the Democrats had gone crazy over censorship and gender stuff.
Von is slightly to the right of Rogan, but has also described himself as pretty centrist.
Charlie Kirk was not racist, there’s no evidence whatsoever of that.
"You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."
There is still something of a denial about the factual evidence available, namely if it walks like a racist and quacks like a racist it's a racist. And these media guys like Kirk walked and quacked like racists.
Likewise if a President is sending the military into cities to subdue American voters, and prosecuting political foes that looks like fascism.
As an aside the most ridiculous media figure in the US, and it is a very full field is Jesse Watters. Jasmine Crockett has pushed back on racist and misogynistic insults from Donald Trump. Watters has responded to her pushback by saying she needs to "date" ( although I think we know what he really means) a white man.
The US gov/Presidency/White House machine has reached the part where people would say “if you made this as a movie everyone would think it’s over the top” to the point that nothing truly can satirise it again.
'The Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace,' said Steven Cheung, White House Director of Communication.
It’s like a reverse “Bugsy Malone” where in this film the adults are playing children. The fact they can be so fucking unbelievably stupid and “white is black and black is white” is nuts.
Do you think they stand in front of a mirror later looking at themselves in shame for spouting this garbage? If they don’t then it’s even more of a problem as they aren’t disingenuous and are instead stupid.
You had Noem the other day announcing they had arrested “the girlfriend of one of the founders of Antifa” and standing on a roof in Portland showing off the war zone - a guy in a chicken suit and about 20 reporters.
It’s a bit of an overused phrase but this series really has jumped the shark”.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Does that matter? How was Churchill regarded before becoming a war-time PM?
Quite badly, I think. Certainly would not be remembered the way he is now.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Does that matter? How was Churchill regarded before becoming a war-time PM?
Point was when was the quote? And people may have different views of people. Many people would have seen Churchill rather differently to how he is seen now.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Good, you cannot have any Tom, Dick, or Mary being able to walk in.
JPMorgan requiring biometric data for staff access to new headquarters
New York bank is imposing eye and fingerprint scans amid heightened security concerns at corporate offices
JPMorgan Chase has told staff moving into the US bank’s new multibillion-dollar Manhattan headquarters they must share their biometric data to access the building, overriding a prior plan for voluntary enrolment.
Employees who have started work at its 270 Park Avenue skyscraper since August have received emails saying biometric access is “required”, according to a communication seen by the Financial Times. This allows people to scan their fingerprints or eye instead of ID badges to get through the lobby security gates.
JPMorgan declined to comment. The bank’s headquarters, which cost a reported $3bn, will eventually house about 10,000 employees once it is fully open later this year.
The goal is to make access to the building more secure and convenient. There are exemptions for some employees who can still use their badge to enter the building, though it was not clear who would receive them.
It comes amid heightened security concerns across corporate offices in New York following a deadly shooting at 345 Park Avenue in July, a few blocks up the street from JPMorgan’s offices.
Charlie Javice just went to jail for seven years for defrauding them of $175m. Plus expenses,
Because of a clause in the M&A docs, JPM has to pick up Charlie Javice’s legal bill for defrauding them. She’s run up $115M in bills. Absolutely incredible. https://x.com/yrechtman/status/1976320602043724015
$115 million for lawyers is an utter bargain.
JPM had to pay their own lawyers another $175m in the same case.
This story brings some real joy into the world.
$280 million for lawyers, what's not to love?
We all love lawyers who can’t add up their own bills.
My favourite case I was ever involved with was two businessmen who set up their own joint venture.
Businessman 1 provided the sales whilst businessman 2 provided the accounts/admin.
They had a major falling out, businessman 1 sued the bank for paying out cheques that weren't to mandate, bank brought in businessman 2 as a part 20 defendant.
The cheques were for legitimate services and some of them paid businessman 1 and his businesses but crucially most weren't to mandate (any payments over £25,000 needed two signatories and most of them had only one).
The total payments came to around £600,000 but neither side wanted to back down, the legal costs came to over £2 million as the dispute lasted years.
The bank’s at fault there
The courts eventually ruled for the bank and businessman 2 on the basis that the payments were legitimate and businessman 1 was aware of cheques above £25,000 being issued with one signature due to regular management information and he’d created an estoppel by convention by receiving and banking cheques that weren’t to mandate.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Does that matter? How was Churchill regarded before becoming a war-time PM?
Churchill certainly wasn't remembered for playing the piano with his John Thomas. So Zelenskyy had somewhat stolen a march on him.
The Reform accounts are going hard on Polanski and the trans issue, seeing it as a weak point, where he looks less straightforward.
I'm not sure that'll work, thoigh, because most people have material priorities. If he looks like the only left alternative and YourParty is still in the doldrums, it won't be the central issue.
Your party held a rally last night and Zarah Sultana apologised profusely for the membership cock up.
Surely Your Party is dead in the water now as the Greens have stolen a march on them.
They’re probably better merging and the Greens going all in on Corbyn style hard left politics. Gaza/Trans/Landlordism/wealth tax etc etc.
It will alienate the Home Counties greens but they will reap dividends in the inner cities.
I'm not sure what or why they're delaying so much. A lot of it seens to have been to do with the conflict between Sultana and the older men in the party, but they'll have to get a move on because the Greens are lifting up their profile fast.
It's very unclear why they're tarrying so. Some sources suggest Corbyn is just very indecisive. There is a desire to involve the grassroots and do something bottom-up, which is commendable in many ways, but also much slower than, say, how Farage created Reform UK or Salmond created Alba.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Does that matter? How was Churchill regarded before becoming a war-time PM?
He certainly wasn't remembered for playing the piano with his John Thomas. So Zelenskyy had something of a head start on him.
Although one kind of thinks that Churchill may have been amused by that act.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Better then any of our PMs.
..A political outsider, Zelenskyy positioned himself as an anti-establishment and anti-corruption figure, and had already become one of the frontrunners in opinion polls for the election months before he formally declared his candidacy. He won the election with 73.23 percent of the vote in the second round, defeating Poroshenko in the biggest landslide in the history of Ukrainian presidential elections. As president, Zelenskyy has been a proponent of e-government and of unity between the Ukrainian- and Russian-speaking parts of the country's population.[4]: 11–13 He makes extensive use of social media, particularly Instagram.[4]: 7–10 His party won a landslide victory in the snap legislative election held shortly after his inauguration as president. During the first two years of his administration, Zelenskyy oversaw the lifting of legal immunity for members of parliament (the Verkhovna Rada),[5] the country's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic recession, and some limited progress in tackling corruption in Ukraine.[6][7][8] A poll in May 2021 by the Rating Group gave Zelenskyy the highest trust rating out of all Ukrainian presidents, and ranked him as the second-best president after Leonid Kuchma.
So if Tucker is having a go at Trump he’s a sage, but the other 99% of the time he’s a crazy conspiracy theorist?
If he's losing the conspiracy nutters who else does he have? The Epstein stuff has holed him and I've also got videos of that Theo Von guy getting upset by ICE.
You’re right on the Epstein stuff, that’s gone down really badly with the base, they were told they’d be seeing the Epstein files and they haven’t turned up. The base are pretty pissed with Pam Bondi for her comments on “hate speech” as well.
The likes of Joe Rogan and Theo Von are both pretty centrist comics, despite them both voting for Trump last time out. They’ve both made negative comments on execution of immigration raids, while being supportive of the concept. They’re a pretty good barometer for the general feeling in the country I think.
As for Tucker, everything he says needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Like so many journalists now working for himself and paid to have an opinion, he doesn’t make factual stuff up but often leaves out a lot of context, and also knows that the wildest opinions drive social media “engagement”.
I'm not convinced by your definition of "centrist". Back in September, you described Charlie Kirk as "a middle-of-the-road conservative Christian youth movement leader". Charlie Kirk absolutely did not deserve to die, but he was racist and anti-Semitic, so it seems odd to describe him as "middle-of-the-road", as it seems odd to describe Rogan as "centrist". I suggest that you are still so deep in a MAGA social media bubble that you are struggling to discern reality.
Oh dear.
Rogan said he’d never voted Republican before last year, and that he voted for Obama. He’s described himself as centre-left, but said that the Democrats had gone crazy over censorship and gender stuff.
Von is slightly to the right of Rogan, but has also described himself as pretty centrist.
Charlie Kirk was not racist, there’s no evidence whatsoever of that.
Rogan has supported vaccine misinformation, HIV denialism and denies climate change. He’s said Jews are “interested in money”. Are these centrist views?
As for Kirk, start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Race and work down. The man was deeply racist and an anti-Semite. He explicitly said the Great Replacement Theory conspiracy was true and he blamed Jews for it.
Many of Kirk's views were deeply repulsive. You don't graduate from Princeton, and get a law doctorate from Harvard, as Michelle Obama did, without possessing a lot of brainpower.
We hear lots about the casual and gratuitous use of 'racist' by the left. And ok there's some truth in that. But less discussed and at least equally prevalent is the opposite tendency on the right whereby unless a person goes round in a tee-shirt emblazoned with "KKK White Power!” they can't in fairness be described as a racist.
And even then..
On a parochial but related note there’s a weird push by one of the more gammony hacks on the Herald to reframe the Orange Order as a poor persecuted lot who are trying to reach out to other faiths. Presumably that reaching out involves beating their drums outside Catholic churches.
Interesting. But paywalled. What is proposed? To turn the music down to below 11 rather than the default level outside the RC place, or even change to Ave Maria gratia plenis?
Edit: tbf they lifted their ban on entering RC churches a few years back, after two UU politicians got stick for attending a RC funeral as part of their official duties in government.
I think it revolves around finding common ‘values’ of the reactionary sort, particularly around identity and the signs on public lavvies, possibly also shared dislike of the SNP. Setting aside the sectarian aspects and wanting to kill each other, I always thought the extreme elements of Catholics and Protestants in NI had more in common than was acknowledged.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Better then any of our PMs.
..A political outsider, Zelenskyy positioned himself as an anti-establishment and anti-corruption figure, and had already become one of the frontrunners in opinion polls for the election months before he formally declared his candidacy. He won the election with 73.23 percent of the vote in the second round, defeating Poroshenko in the biggest landslide in the history of Ukrainian presidential elections. As president, Zelenskyy has been a proponent of e-government and of unity between the Ukrainian- and Russian-speaking parts of the country's population.[4]: 11–13 He makes extensive use of social media, particularly Instagram.[4]: 7–10 His party won a landslide victory in the snap legislative election held shortly after his inauguration as president. During the first two years of his administration, Zelenskyy oversaw the lifting of legal immunity for members of parliament (the Verkhovna Rada),[5] the country's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic recession, and some limited progress in tackling corruption in Ukraine.[6][7][8] A poll in May 2021 by the Rating Group gave Zelenskyy the highest trust rating out of all Ukrainian presidents, and ranked him as the second-best president after Leonid Kuchma.
The US gov/Presidency/White House machine has reached the part where people would say “if you made this as a movie everyone would think it’s over the top” to the point that nothing truly can satirise it again.
'The Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace,' said Steven Cheung, White House Director of Communication.
It’s like a reverse “Bugsy Malone” where in this film the adults are playing children. The fact they can be so fucking unbelievably stupid and “white is black and black is white” is nuts.
Do you think they stand in front of a mirror later looking at themselves in shame for spouting this garbage? If they don’t then it’s even more of a problem as they aren’t disingenuous and are instead stupid.
You had Noem the other day announcing they had arrested “the girlfriend of one of the founders of Antifa” and standing on a roof in Portland showing off the war zone - a guy in a chicken suit and about 20 reporters.
It’s a bit of an overused phrase but this series really has jumped the shark”.
Yep. That's a big part of the Trump poison. Things that a short while ago would have been regarded as utterly ludicrous (and mainly in a bad way) now happen constantly and pass with a shrug or a snigger.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Does that matter? How was Churchill regarded before becoming a war-time PM?
Point was when was the quote? And people may have different views of people. Many people would have seen Churchill rather differently to how he is seen now.
Kirk was a political propagandist his entire adult life. He was obviously very good at that, but beyond that ability he had very little to say that was particularly interesting.
"The Princess of Wales has warned that an overload of smartphones and computer screens is creating an "epidemic of disconnection" that disrupts family life.
"While digital devices promise to keep us connected, they frequently do the opposite," writes Catherine, in an essay written in collaboration with Prof Robert Waldinger from Harvard Medical School.
Catherine says smartphones and gadgets have become a "constant distraction, fragmenting our focus" and undermining the time that families spend together.
"We're physically present but mentally absent, unable to fully engage with the people right in front of us," writes the princess, in an essay that's part of her early years education campaign."
The US gov/Presidency/White House machine has reached the part where people would say “if you made this as a movie everyone would think it’s over the top” to the point that nothing truly can satirise it again.
'The Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace,' said Steven Cheung, White House Director of Communication.
It’s like a reverse “Bugsy Malone” where in this film the adults are playing children. The fact they can be so fucking unbelievably stupid and “white is black and black is white” is nuts.
Do you think they stand in front of a mirror later looking at themselves in shame for spouting this garbage? If they don’t then it’s even more of a problem as they aren’t disingenuous and are instead stupid.
You had Noem the other day announcing they had arrested “the girlfriend of one of the founders of Antifa” and standing on a roof in Portland showing off the war zone - a guy in a chicken suit and about 20 reporters.
It’s a bit of an overused phrase but this series really has jumped the shark”.
Cheung makes Kirk look both a moderate centrist, and a genius.
So if Tucker is having a go at Trump he’s a sage, but the other 99% of the time he’s a crazy conspiracy theorist?
If he's losing the conspiracy nutters who else does he have? The Epstein stuff has holed him and I've also got videos of that Theo Von guy getting upset by ICE.
You’re right on the Epstein stuff, that’s gone down really badly with the base, they were told they’d be seeing the Epstein files and they haven’t turned up. The base are pretty pissed with Pam Bondi for her comments on “hate speech” as well.
The likes of Joe Rogan and Theo Von are both pretty centrist comics, despite them both voting for Trump last time out. They’ve both made negative comments on execution of immigration raids, while being supportive of the concept. They’re a pretty good barometer for the general feeling in the country I think.
As for Tucker, everything he says needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Like so many journalists now working for himself and paid to have an opinion, he doesn’t make factual stuff up but often leaves out a lot of context, and also knows that the wildest opinions drive social media “engagement”.
I'm not convinced by your definition of "centrist". Back in September, you described Charlie Kirk as "a middle-of-the-road conservative Christian youth movement leader". Charlie Kirk absolutely did not deserve to die, but he was racist and anti-Semitic, so it seems odd to describe him as "middle-of-the-road", as it seems odd to describe Rogan as "centrist". I suggest that you are still so deep in a MAGA social media bubble that you are struggling to discern reality.
Oh dear.
Rogan said he’d never voted Republican before last year, and that he voted for Obama. He’s described himself as centre-left, but said that the Democrats had gone crazy over censorship and gender stuff.
Von is slightly to the right of Rogan, but has also described himself as pretty centrist.
Charlie Kirk was not racist, there’s no evidence whatsoever of that.
Rogan has supported vaccine misinformation, HIV denialism and denies climate change. He’s said Jews are “interested in money”. Are these centrist views?
As for Kirk, start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Race and work down. The man was deeply racist and an anti-Semite. He explicitly said the Great Replacement Theory conspiracy was true and he blamed Jews for it.
Many of Kirk's views were deeply repulsive. You don't graduate from Princeton, and get a law doctorate from Harvard, as Michelle Obama did, without possessing a lot of brainpower.
We hear lots about the casual and gratuitous use of 'racist' by the left. And ok there's some truth in that. But less discussed and at least equally prevalent is the opposite tendency on the right whereby unless a person goes round in a tee-shirt emblazoned with "KKK White Power!" they can't in fairness be described as a racist.
Don’t worry, the vast majority of us on the centre right think the KKK are racist. Pretty much any organised group of the right is very quick to disassociate themselves from anyone who crosses the line, including groups such as Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point.
Personally my line would be Nigel Farage on the right and Jeremy Corbyn on the left, both of whom are not racist but have been known to associate with those who are.
Well that's good to hear about the KKK! But Douglas Seal is right that it's a spectrum and for me there's a fair bit that merits being tagged 'racist' before we get to that extreme end of it. Kirk is a case in point. To arrive at a 'not racist' verdict there given the things he said requires a heroic amount of slack and context and benefits of doubts. But, ok, to go back to my original point, he was never spotted in the tee shirt.
I agree with you about the spectrum, but also that there should be a high bar to demonisation of an individual for words that they have said. People also change over time, often moderating youthful attitudes in middle age.
"The Princess of Wales has warned that an overload of smartphones and computer screens is creating an "epidemic of disconnection" that disrupts family life.
"While digital devices promise to keep us connected, they frequently do the opposite," writes Catherine, in an essay written in collaboration with Prof Robert Waldinger from Harvard Medical School.
Catherine says smartphones and gadgets have become a "constant distraction, fragmenting our focus" and undermining the time that families spend together.
"We're physically present but mentally absent, unable to fully engage with the people right in front of us," writes the princess, in an essay that's part of her early years education campaign."
There is a long history of parodies of "Video Killed the Radio Star" with something else killing the video star. Here is "TikTok Killed the Video Star", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Thkl82t1rs , which I think is a good example (particularly the ending), but there are many other example, like "New AIs Fillling Us With Alarm" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDzFOl7ynNI . Indeed, Robbie Williams had an album called Reality Killed the Video Star that was produced by Trevor Horn of The Buggles.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Does that matter? How was Churchill regarded before becoming a war-time PM?
Point was when was the quote? And people may have different views of people. Many people would have seen Churchill rather differently to how he is seen now.
The Reform accounts are going hard on Polanski and the trans issue, seeing it as a weak point, where he looks less straightforward.
I'm not sure that'll work, thoigh, because most people have material priorities. If he looks like the only left alternative and YourParty is still in the doldrums, it won't be the central issue.
Your party held a rally last night and Zarah Sultana apologised profusely for the membership cock up.
Surely Your Party is dead in the water now as the Greens have stolen a march on them.
They’re probably better merging and the Greens going all in on Corbyn style hard left politics. Gaza/Trans/Landlordism/wealth tax etc etc.
It will alienate the Home Counties greens but they will reap dividends in the inner cities.
I'm not sure what or why they're delaying so much. A lot of it seens to have been to do with the conflict between Sultana and the older men in the party, but they'll have to get a move on because the Greens are lifting up their profile fast.
It's very unclear why they're tarrying so. Some sources suggest Corbyn is just very indecisive. There is a desire to involve the grassroots and do something bottom-up, which is commendable in many ways, but also much slower than, say, how Farage created Reform UK or Salmond created Alba.
There are lots of different people who find it hard to work together, and so they're moving at a slow pace because it's taking a long time to get everyone to agree.
On the one hand this is kinda commendable, but on the other they mostly seem to be arguing over organisational process as they try to outmanoeuvre each other for control.
It’s like a reverse “Bugsy Malone” where in this film the adults are playing children. The fact they can be so fucking unbelievably stupid and “white is black and black is white” is nuts.
Noted elsewhere, but everything they do and say makes total sense, if they are 12 years old.
working on a new unified theory of american reality i'm calling "everyone is twelve now"
“I’m strong and I want to have like fifty kids and a farm” of course you do. You’re twelve. “I don’t want to eat vegetables I think steak and French fries is the only meal” hell yeah homie you’re twelve. “Maybe if there’s crime we should just send the army” bless your heart my twelve year old buddy
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Does that matter? How was Churchill regarded before becoming a war-time PM?
Point was when was the quote? And people may have different views of people. Many people would have seen Churchill rather differently to how he is seen now.
Kirk was a political propagandist his entire adult life. He was obviously very good at that, but beyond that ability he had very little to say that was particularly interesting.
I suspect Kirk didn't give a tinker's cuss about Ukraine or know anything about it before Vlad invaded and he had to defend Trump's siding with Russia.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Does that matter? How was Churchill regarded before becoming a war-time PM?
Point was when was the quote? And people may have different views of people. Many people would have seen Churchill rather differently to how he is seen now.
Kirk was a political propagandist his entire adult life. He was obviously very good at that, but beyond that ability he had very little to say that was particularly interesting.
Propagandising is intrinsically uninteresting. It is obvious that the most interesting aspects of any argument or case lie in the weakest points which need the most careful attention. Propaganda exists to ignore or overlook exactly this. We are awash with it.
I find it quite sad. From probably the age of 11 onwards I loved MTV and would make compilation videos of my favourite songs as they came on, much like people used to with the radio.
I remember it feeling exotic and cool, the DJS were a mix of Brits like Ray Cokes, Paul King for example then exotic beautiful Europeans like Kristiane Backer and Maiken Wexo.
Loved it on in bars and cafes for an element of life it gave with the music and all the flashing imagery.
I wish they had a streaming service or similar where each day they would just put on each of a number of channels a classic year as broadcast on that day unaltered. So you might have 10th October 1989, 1992, 1995 etc playing and you could get your preferred era.
It died for me when it started showing “programmes” on MtV when they had all the other MTV channels to put them on and keep music on MTV. Cribs was fun for its time but shouldn’t have been on the main channel.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Does that matter? How was Churchill regarded before becoming a war-time PM?
Point was when was the quote? And people may have different views of people. Many people would have seen Churchill rather differently to how he is seen now.
Kirk was a political propagandist his entire adult life. He was obviously very good at that, but beyond that ability he had very little to say that was particularly interesting.
I suspect Kirk didn't give a tinker's cuss about Ukraine or know anything about it before Vlad invaded and he had to defend Trump's siding with Russia.
There was the whole refusal to frame Biden thing, well before the invasion, of course.
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
I’m surprised that FSU has time to spare from its relentless campaign on behalf of hundreds of pensioners arrested for the act of wearing a t shirt.
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
That is good news. But this is interesting:
Highlighting that there is "no offence of blasphemy in our law", the Court added that whilst burning a Quran may be an act that many Muslims find "desperately upsetting and offensive", the criminal law is "not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset".
I thought upsetting people had been criminalized under the Communications Act (or whatever), and that was the huge controversy. Was that not the case after all?
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
This was in London, outside the Turkish consulate
My apologies. Why wasn't this Kadri character arrested and charged ?
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
This was in London, outside the Turkish consulate
My apologies. Why wasn't this Kadri character arrested and charged ?
He was. The judiciary decided he required nothing more than a Hard Stare.
So if Tucker is having a go at Trump he’s a sage, but the other 99% of the time he’s a crazy conspiracy theorist?
If he's losing the conspiracy nutters who else does he have? The Epstein stuff has holed him and I've also got videos of that Theo Von guy getting upset by ICE.
You’re right on the Epstein stuff, that’s gone down really badly with the base, they were told they’d be seeing the Epstein files and they haven’t turned up. The base are pretty pissed with Pam Bondi for her comments on “hate speech” as well.
The likes of Joe Rogan and Theo Von are both pretty centrist comics, despite them both voting for Trump last time out. They’ve both made negative comments on execution of immigration raids, while being supportive of the concept. They’re a pretty good barometer for the general feeling in the country I think.
As for Tucker, everything he says needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Like so many journalists now working for himself and paid to have an opinion, he doesn’t make factual stuff up but often leaves out a lot of context, and also knows that the wildest opinions drive social media “engagement”.
I'm not convinced by your definition of "centrist". Back in September, you described Charlie Kirk as "a middle-of-the-road conservative Christian youth movement leader". Charlie Kirk absolutely did not deserve to die, but he was racist and anti-Semitic, so it seems odd to describe him as "middle-of-the-road", as it seems odd to describe Rogan as "centrist". I suggest that you are still so deep in a MAGA social media bubble that you are struggling to discern reality.
Oh dear.
Rogan said he’d never voted Republican before last year, and that he voted for Obama. He’s described himself as centre-left, but said that the Democrats had gone crazy over censorship and gender stuff.
Von is slightly to the right of Rogan, but has also described himself as pretty centrist.
Charlie Kirk was not racist, there’s no evidence whatsoever of that.
Rogan has supported vaccine misinformation, HIV denialism and denies climate change. He’s said Jews are “interested in money”. Are these centrist views?
As for Kirk, start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Race and work down. The man was deeply racist and an anti-Semite. He explicitly said the Great Replacement Theory conspiracy was true and he blamed Jews for it.
Many of Kirk's views were deeply repulsive. You don't graduate from Princeton, and get a law doctorate from Harvard, as Michelle Obama did, without possessing a lot of brainpower.
We hear lots about the casual and gratuitous use of 'racist' by the left. And ok there's some truth in that. But less discussed and at least equally prevalent is the opposite tendency on the right whereby unless a person goes round in a tee-shirt emblazoned with "KKK White Power!” they can't in fairness be described as a racist.
And even then..
On a parochial but related note there’s a weird push by one of the more gammony hacks on the Herald to reframe the Orange Order as a poor persecuted lot who are trying to reach out to other faiths. Presumably that reaching out involves beating their drums outside Catholic churches.
Interesting. But paywalled. What is proposed? To turn the music down to below 11 rather than the default level outside the RC place, or even change to Ave Maria gratia plenis?
Edit: tbf they lifted their ban on entering RC churches a few years back, after two UU politicians got stick for attending a RC funeral as part of their official duties in government.
I think it revolves around finding common ‘values’ of the reactionary sort, particularly around identity and the signs on public lavvies, possibly also shared dislike of the SNP. Setting aside the sectarian aspects and wanting to kill each other, I always thought the extreme elements of Catholics and Protestants in NI had more in common than was acknowledged.
Despite living within moderate rifle shot of each other (often) the leaders of the various groups in NI rarely managed to murder each other.
Some say it is cynical to note how smoothly various criminal enterprises worked across the borders of the “sectarian divide”.
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
That is good news. But this is interesting:
Highlighting that there is "no offence of blasphemy in our law", the Court added that whilst burning a Quran may be an act that many Muslims find "desperately upsetting and offensive", the criminal law is "not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset".
I thought upsetting people had been criminalized under the Communications Act (or whatever), and that was the huge controversy. Was that not the case after all?
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
This was in London, outside the Turkish consulate
My apologies. Why wasn't this Kadri character arrested and charged ?
The US gov/Presidency/White House machine has reached the part where people would say “if you made this as a movie everyone would think it’s over the top” to the point that nothing truly can satirise it again.
'The Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace,' said Steven Cheung, White House Director of Communication.
It’s like a reverse “Bugsy Malone” where in this film the adults are playing children. The fact they can be so fucking unbelievably stupid and “white is black and black is white” is nuts.
Do you think they stand in front of a mirror later looking at themselves in shame for spouting this garbage? If they don’t then it’s even more of a problem as they aren’t disingenuous and are instead stupid.
You had Noem the other day announcing they had arrested “the girlfriend of one of the founders of Antifa” and standing on a roof in Portland showing off the war zone - a guy in a chicken suit and about 20 reporters.
It’s a bit of an overused phrase but this series really has jumped the shark”.
Yep. That's a big part of the Trump poison. Things that a short while ago would have been regarded as utterly ludicrous (and mainly in a bad way) now happen constantly and pass with a shrug or a snigger.
Nigey has been busy today.
Talking of Trump poison. Sir Nige is outraged that Trump, Rubio, Witkoff (?) and Kushner haven't been awarded the NPP.
Lord Farage utterly, utterly shocked that Nathan Gill shilled for Russia.
National Treasure Nigel Farage sees a foreigner convicted at Southwark Crown Court of incitement to kill the PM in waiting.
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
That is good news. But this is interesting:
Highlighting that there is "no offence of blasphemy in our law", the Court added that whilst burning a Quran may be an act that many Muslims find "desperately upsetting and offensive", the criminal law is "not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset".
I thought upsetting people had been criminalized under the Communications Act (or whatever), and that was the huge controversy. Was that not the case after all?
Well this was the appeal against that initial ruling.
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Answer from a friendly Ukranian, Mrs Sandpit.
He was elected with 70% of the vote against Porochenko, as a protest vote against corruption. His main backer was a banker, and the plan was to try and get the corruption out of the country.
His team was inexperienced, and before the war wasn’t seen as particularly successful, but he wasn’t massively disliked.
Obviously everything changed when the war started, and the country rallied around him. I think it’s fair to say that he’s pretty well thought of there now, although there is criticism of the way some of the war has been handled.
Rep. Buddy Carter: "Donald Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. That's why I'm introducing a resolution today that will honor him with the Nobel Peace Prize."
They are looking at the wrong thing then - one login is Orwellian (in their eyes) the id card is minimal against that
When I worked in the Civil Service we used to joke that all of HMRC's big programmes sounded like Borg motivational posters. 'Securing Our Technical Future' and 'One Login for Government'.
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
I’m surprised that FSU has time to spare from its relentless campaign on behalf of hundreds of pensioners arrested for the act of wearing a t shirt.
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
This was in London, outside the Turkish consulate
My apologies. Why wasn't this Kadri character arrested and charged ?
He was. The judiciary decided he required nothing more than a Hard Stare.
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
That is good news. But this is interesting:
Highlighting that there is "no offence of blasphemy in our law", the Court added that whilst burning a Quran may be an act that many Muslims find "desperately upsetting and offensive", the criminal law is "not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset".
I thought upsetting people had been criminalized under the Communications Act (or whatever), and that was the huge controversy. Was that not the case after all?
Such as saying that men cannot become women, for instances, and thus using hurty words?
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
This was in London, outside the Turkish consulate
My apologies. Why wasn't this Kadri character arrested and charged ?
He was. The judiciary decided he required nothing more than a Hard Stare.
Not quite clear what a "sharpened bread knife" is, but he seems rather fortunate not to have done a short time behind bars.
Two tier justice. If that was a black gang member or a white far right rioter doing the same they would have got a custodial sentence. The UK has a class that the judiciary and politicians are doing their best to protect from the consequences of their own actions.
So if Tucker is having a go at Trump he’s a sage, but the other 99% of the time he’s a crazy conspiracy theorist?
If he's losing the conspiracy nutters who else does he have? The Epstein stuff has holed him and I've also got videos of that Theo Von guy getting upset by ICE.
You’re right on the Epstein stuff, that’s gone down really badly with the base, they were told they’d be seeing the Epstein files and they haven’t turned up. The base are pretty pissed with Pam Bondi for her comments on “hate speech” as well.
The likes of Joe Rogan and Theo Von are both pretty centrist comics, despite them both voting for Trump last time out. They’ve both made negative comments on execution of immigration raids, while being supportive of the concept. They’re a pretty good barometer for the general feeling in the country I think.
As for Tucker, everything he says needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Like so many journalists now working for himself and paid to have an opinion, he doesn’t make factual stuff up but often leaves out a lot of context, and also knows that the wildest opinions drive social media “engagement”.
I'm not convinced by your definition of "centrist". Back in September, you described Charlie Kirk as "a middle-of-the-road conservative Christian youth movement leader". Charlie Kirk absolutely did not deserve to die, but he was racist and anti-Semitic, so it seems odd to describe him as "middle-of-the-road", as it seems odd to describe Rogan as "centrist". I suggest that you are still so deep in a MAGA social media bubble that you are struggling to discern reality.
Oh dear.
Rogan said he’d never voted Republican before last year, and that he voted for Obama. He’s described himself as centre-left, but said that the Democrats had gone crazy over censorship and gender stuff.
Von is slightly to the right of Rogan, but has also described himself as pretty centrist.
Charlie Kirk was not racist, there’s no evidence whatsoever of that.
Rogan has supported vaccine misinformation, HIV denialism and denies climate change. He’s said Jews are “interested in money”. Are these centrist views?
As for Kirk, start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Race and work down. The man was deeply racist and an anti-Semite. He explicitly said the Great Replacement Theory conspiracy was true and he blamed Jews for it.
Many of Kirk's views were deeply repulsive. You don't graduate from Princeton, and get a law doctorate from Harvard, as Michelle Obama did, without possessing a lot of brainpower.
We hear lots about the casual and gratuitous use of 'racist' by the left. And ok there's some truth in that. But less discussed and at least equally prevalent is the opposite tendency on the right whereby unless a person goes round in a tee-shirt emblazoned with "KKK White Power!” they can't in fairness be described as a racist.
And even then..
On a parochial but related note there’s a weird push by one of the more gammony hacks on the Herald to reframe the Orange Order as a poor persecuted lot who are trying to reach out to other faiths. Presumably that reaching out involves beating their drums outside Catholic churches.
Interesting. But paywalled. What is proposed? To turn the music down to below 11 rather than the default level outside the RC place, or even change to Ave Maria gratia plenis?
Edit: tbf they lifted their ban on entering RC churches a few years back, after two UU politicians got stick for attending a RC funeral as part of their official duties in government.
I think it revolves around finding common ‘values’ of the reactionary sort, particularly around identity and the signs on public lavvies, possibly also shared dislike of the SNP. Setting aside the sectarian aspects and wanting to kill each other, I always thought the extreme elements of Catholics and Protestants in NI had more in common than was acknowledged.
This has nudged something loose in my brain, and indeed I had completely forgotten that Keven McKenna is RC or more precisely and relevantly to the discussion, writes about it or at least his perception. For instance:
Charlie Kirk also called Zelenskyy a "gangster" and a "CIA puppet", while Rogan has been more direct about Zelenskyy, saying, "Fuck you, man." Kirk long opposed support for Ukraine. He said Crimea "has always been part of Russia". But maybe that was all out of context?
Zelensky is someone who has been made into a hero by the situation he found himself in and his reaction to it. How was he regarded before the invasion?
Does that matter? How was Churchill regarded before becoming a war-time PM?
Point was when was the quote? And people may have different views of people. Many people would have seen Churchill rather differently to how he is seen now.
Kirk was a political propagandist his entire adult life. He was obviously very good at that, but beyond that ability he had very little to say that was particularly interesting.
I suspect Kirk didn't give a tinker's cuss about Ukraine or know anything about it before Vlad invaded and he had to defend Trump's siding with Russia.
Comments
@Dura_Ace
Reuters
@reuters.com
'When authoritarians seize power, it is crucial to recognize courageous defenders of freedom who rise and resist,' the Norwegian Nobel Committee said as it announced Maria Corina Machado as the winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize
But given the vast numbers now being produced, it's only a matter of time before someone more organised has a go.
Terrible at passing
Edit: tbf they lifted their ban on entering RC churches a few years back, after two UU politicians got stick for attending a RC funeral as part of their official duties in government.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17526374.orange-order-shock-catholic-rule-change-drastic-effect/
Although I'm led to believe there was a long-standing threat of aerial attacks in Belgium from hot-air Walloons.
It’s now become an impediment to efficient allocation of economic activity.
As to why the Tories didn’t abolish it previously they were initially focused on reducing the deficit (under Osborne) so needed the revenue; they were then focused on brexit and Covid both of which were higher priorities than tax reform.
https://x.com/trobinsonnewera/status/1976395121668259919?s=46
Wouldn’t know the answer, I’m afraid
(Or Reform and Corbyn/Sultana/the Islamosectarians)
I would also vote Reform over Green or even Starmer Labour over
Also, top marks for originality of syntax in that last line. Confusing, but I enjoyed it.
Personally, ina two horse race, I wouldn't vote Reform Starmer Labour over - I'd vote for my favourite no-hoper.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr612yz8p0o
Likewise if a President is sending the military into cities to subdue American voters, and prosecuting political foes that looks like fascism.
As an aside the most ridiculous media figure in the US, and it is a very full field is Jesse Watters. Jasmine Crockett has pushed back on racist and misogynistic insults from Donald Trump. Watters has responded to her pushback by saying she needs to "date" ( although I think we know what he really means) a white man.
https://youtu.be/xKYot18Rc9k?si=2Af0uf9VECnkHa6i
Anyway, "in my mind and in my car we can't rewind we've gone too far".
'The Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace,' said Steven Cheung, White House Director of Communication.
It’s like a reverse “Bugsy Malone” where in this film the adults are playing children. The fact they can be so fucking unbelievably stupid and “white is black and black is white” is nuts.
Do you think they stand in front of a mirror later looking at themselves in shame for spouting this garbage? If they don’t then it’s even more of a problem as they aren’t disingenuous and are instead stupid.
You had Noem the other day announcing they had arrested “the girlfriend of one of the founders of Antifa” and standing on a roof in Portland showing off the war zone - a guy in a chicken suit and about 20 reporters.
It’s a bit of an overused phrase but this series really has jumped the shark”.
..A political outsider, Zelenskyy positioned himself as an anti-establishment and anti-corruption figure, and had already become one of the frontrunners in opinion polls for the election months before he formally declared his candidacy. He won the election with 73.23 percent of the vote in the second round, defeating Poroshenko in the biggest landslide in the history of Ukrainian presidential elections.
As president, Zelenskyy has been a proponent of e-government and of unity between the Ukrainian- and Russian-speaking parts of the country's population.[4]: 11–13 He makes extensive use of social media, particularly Instagram.[4]: 7–10 His party won a landslide victory in the snap legislative election held shortly after his inauguration as president. During the first two years of his administration, Zelenskyy oversaw the lifting of legal immunity for members of parliament (the Verkhovna Rada),[5] the country's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic recession, and some limited progress in tackling corruption in Ukraine.[6][7][8] A poll in May 2021 by the Rating Group gave Zelenskyy the highest trust rating out of all Ukrainian presidents, and ranked him as the second-best president after Leonid Kuchma.
Setting aside the sectarian aspects and wanting to kill each other, I always thought the extreme elements of Catholics and Protestants in NI had more in common than was acknowledged.
Princess Catherine is right about this imo.
RefUK 754
Lab 635
Green 371
LD 113
Con 86
RefUK Hold"
"Wychavon, Bretforton and Offenham
RefUK 357
Green 213
Con 165
Lab 33
LD 31
Ind 12
Ind 10
RefUK gain from Con"
https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/19739/local-council-election-october-2025?page=5
On the one hand this is kinda commendable, but on the other they mostly seem to be arguing over organisational process as they try to outmanoeuvre each other for control.
@veryimportant.lawyer
working on a new unified theory of american reality i'm calling "everyone is twelve now"
“I’m strong and I want to have like fifty kids and a farm” of course you do. You’re twelve. “I don’t want to eat vegetables I think steak and French fries is the only meal” hell yeah homie you’re twelve. “Maybe if there’s crime we should just send the army” bless your heart my twelve year old buddy
https://bsky.app/profile/veryimportant.lawyer/post/3lybyflzgzs2q
I remember it feeling exotic and cool, the DJS were a mix of Brits like Ray Cokes, Paul King for example then exotic beautiful Europeans like Kristiane Backer and Maiken Wexo.
Loved it on in bars and cafes for an element of life it gave with the music and all the flashing imagery.
I wish they had a streaming service or similar where each day they would just put on each of a number of channels a classic year as broadcast on that day unaltered. So you might have 10th October 1989, 1992, 1995 etc playing and you could get your preferred era.
It died for me when it started showing “programmes” on MtV when they had all the other MTV channels to put them on and keep music on MTV. Cribs was fun for its time but shouldn’t have been on the main channel.
@ElectionMapsUK
Aggregate Result of the 122 Council By-Elections (for 125 Seats) since the 2025 Local Elections:
RFM: 47 (+40)
LDM: 32 (+10)
CON: 13 (-15)
LAB: 12 (-30)
GRN: 11 (+3)
Ind: 5 (-4)
Local: 3 (-3)
SNP: 1 (-1)
PLC: 1 (=)
Explore: https://electionmaps.uk/byelections-since-le2025"
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK
https://x.com/SpeechUnion/status/1976614542785270149
MAJOR VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH! HAMIT COSKUN WINS HIS APPEAL AGAINST ISLAMIC BLASPHEMY LAW
The Free Speech Union is delighted that Hamit Coskun’s appeal has been successful.
Hamit was convicted under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran during a lawful protest against the rise of political Islam and authorities in Turkey under President Erdoğan’s regime.
The court conflated his political protest against Islam with hatred of Muslims, effectively reviving blasphemy law by the back door. It ruled his action as “disorderly” — not because of what Hamit did, but because it provoked violence against him, namely a man called Moussa Kadri slashed a knife at him and shouted “I’m going to kill you”. Kadri was spared jail time, and actions were used to prove Hamit’s guilt. Meanwhile, Hamit is forced to live in hiding due to multiple threats to his life.
Hamit’s conviction has now been overturned. Had the verdict been allowed to stand, it would have sent a message to religious fundamentalists up and down the country that all they need to do to enforce their blasphemy codes is to violently attack the blasphemer, thereby making him or her guilty of having caused public disorder.
Instead, the Crown Court has sent the opposite message - that anti-religious protests, however offensive to true believers, must be tolerated.
Highlighting that there is "no offence of blasphemy in our law", the Court added that whilst burning a Quran may be an act that many Muslims find "desperately upsetting and offensive", the criminal law is "not a mechanism that seeks to avoid people being upset, even grievously upset".
I thought upsetting people had been criminalized under the Communications Act (or whatever), and that was the huge controversy. Was that not the case after all?
Why wasn't this Kadri character arrested and charged ?
Some say it is cynical to note how smoothly various criminal enterprises worked across the borders of the “sectarian divide”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o
Talking of Trump poison. Sir Nige is outraged that Trump, Rubio, Witkoff (?) and Kushner haven't been awarded the NPP.
Lord Farage utterly, utterly shocked that Nathan Gill shilled for Russia.
National Treasure Nigel Farage sees a foreigner convicted at Southwark Crown Court of incitement to kill the PM in waiting.
He was elected with 70% of the vote against Porochenko, as a protest vote against corruption. His main backer was a banker, and the plan was to try and get the corruption out of the country.
His team was inexperienced, and before the war wasn’t seen as particularly successful, but he wasn’t massively disliked.
Obviously everything changed when the war started, and the country rallied around him. I think it’s fair to say that he’s pretty well thought of there now, although there is criticism of the way some of the war has been handled.
Rep. Buddy Carter: "Donald Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. That's why I'm introducing a resolution today that will honor him with the Nobel Peace Prize."
(It doesn't work like that lol)
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m2trrilq2h2d
A suspended sentence of 18 months,
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Rex-v-Moussa-Kadri.pdf
Not quite clear what a "sharpened bread knife" is, but he seems rather fortunate not to have done a short time behind bars.
Exc: Eight Reform UK councils have indicated that they will raise council tax next year after struggling to find sweeping cuts in public spending
https://x.com/MaxKendix/status/1976638947284664609
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/08/if-there-is-a-cardinal-sin-to-be-made-count-on-catholic-church
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/25164122.catholic-feel-certain-empathy-orange-lodge/
I am not sure how far he is signed up to Labour, if at all (not to be confused with the homonymous MP for Sittingbourne obvs).