I'm sure it won't encourage other states to do the same.
Putin and Kim are already doing so, Trump is right to do so in my view, he needs to show Russia, N Korea and China it isn't just them who can show off their nuclear warheads. Starmer and Macron could also follow suit
He’s normalising bad behaviour.
Just like his pending invasion of Venezuela is designed to normalise Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Bet you he calls it a “special military operation” as well…
Putin is behaving badly. While it’s Russia and North Korea doing stuff it’s easy to condemn.
Far harder to maintain a strong line that it is wrong when the US does it as well. That’s what “normalisation” is.
Putin doesn't give a toss about strongly worded statements at the UN saying he is wrong, he will care about tests of raw nuclear missile power by the USA
Evening pb. Point #1: Due, I can only imagine, to my utter ineptitude, I have managed to post on two successive dead threads: ordinarily I would let this sort of thing slide, but I really enjoyed the photo - so with apologies, I will try again:
Posters may remember I was planning a trip to Glasgow. A full review to follow in due course. But in the meantime, the most Glaswegian image of the day from the adjacent table in the Willow Tea Rooms: Charles Rennie MacKintosh with Irn Bru.
Point #2: For the possible interest of @Theuniondivvie , @malcolmg, @Carnyx , @Fairliered and others who kindly supplied ideas for my trip north, some reflections: I really, really like Glasgow. My adored Morningside grandmother - for whom Glasgow was number 1 in a long, long list of things of which she disapproved - may turn in her grave at me saying this, but it may be my favourite British city. Edinburgh may be more beautiful, but to this Mancunian, Glasgow feels like a city should feel, only better. I'm struggling to put my finger on exactly why. Glasgow is bloody handsome, or course, but nit as beautiful as Edinburgh. Glasgow's things-to-do quotient is high - its tourist offer, its pubs, its restaurants - but again, surely Edinburgh can easily match it? It does, to this Mancunian, feel like a city should - the right size, the right buzziness, the slight edge - is it just that I am slightly suspicious of things being too nice? I think what it comes down to is the feeling that if you lived here you could have a really nice life. And to be young here must be - if not heaven itself, pretty close. Of course, you'd have to not mind the weather. I know people who have moved to Manchester because they couldn't cope with the rain in Glasgow any longer.
With thanks for everyone's suggestions, I have managed only a small handful. We stopped on the way to Aberfoyle and had lunch at the Griffin in that dead zone between tge city centre and the West End - the pub looked no better than miderately charming, but the food was amazing - then walked down to the Kelvingrove museum, which was brilliant - exactly what a museum should be and only a minimum of self-flagellation about the empire and climate change (compared to its counterpart in Manchester at least). Then, just as we were leaving, an organ recital! Yer actual toccata and fugue like a horror movie of old. And as we left, the sun came out, and the skyline of the university building: one of my favourite urban views in the country. [cont in a minute...]
I've known quite a few folk who claim Glasgow has more merit than Edinburgh. They appeared to be in possession of their senses and weren't registered blind or under the influence, so maybe there is something in their opinion but, really, truthfully, there is no comparison.
It's equivalent to saying Sunderland is superior to Newcastle. You can argue the case but, honestly...
No, I cautiously stand by it, for this primary reason: living costs are a material consideration of how nice a life you could have. And you could live rather sumptiously in one of Glasgow's better suburbs for the price of somewhere either cramped or inconvenient in Edinburgh. I would never attempt to argue the merits of Sunderland over Newcastle, even taking into account coat of living. But once you get over a threshold of "I could live here and feel I was having a good life" - which I think Glasgow offers - I think the living costs over Edinburgh give it the edge. Edinburgh is more beautiful - and drier, certainly. But is that enough? Maybe I am naturally predisposed to prefer places in the west...
Must agree to differ there. The combination of the New Town and the Old Town, the topography (Salisbury Crags, The Castle), the approach, the history, the culture: incomparable. You can spend days and days exploring Edinburgh. Possibly the most handsome city in the UK. Only London surpasses it, but then London is a genuine world city.
I just don't see how a Victorian industrial grid-planned settlement can compete, though I do quite like the west end.
My point is: if you were to offer me the choice of identically-sized four-bed semis on Morningside or Hillhead - well yes, I might plump for Morningside. (Though sitting in Glasgow saying that I feel awfully disloyal.) But that wouldn't be the choice, I don't think? (I haven't checked). It would be handsome four-bed semi in Hillhead or two-bed flat in Morningside/handsome four bed semi in inconvenient location with bad schools in Edinburgh. And in that eventuality, Glasgow would win. But I can absolutely understand the position of those who put up with less comfort or convenience in Edinburgh due to living costs for the benefit of living in one of the most beautiful cities in Europe.
London is a world city, but there's very little of it I'd describe as attractive or handsome and even that is being rapidly swamped by unattractive high rise office buildings
Just got back from a couple of weeks in Tangier, Fes and Marrakech (and places in between) and found myself remarking how handsome and attractive London looks to the objective eye.
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
Licenses for single family residence rentals are basically automatically granted, so -in terms of scale- it's not really comparable.
Do you still think that it was reasonable for her to not know she needed a licence, because you didn't know whether you needed one?
You weren't campaigning for selective landlord licensing in Jan 2023 were you?
Oh come on @BlancheLivermore, I was all for calling for Rayner's resignation because she dodged taxes (or at the very least took actions to remain ignorant of them). That was a serious offence: it was, I believe, an act of moral turpitude, and I have a very low tolerence for that.
In this case, she asked her agents to secure a license, and that didn't happen. Now, should she have checked? Yes. But there's no moral turpitude involved, no attempt to decieve or to obtain pecuniary advantage.
So, sure, she should have been more organized. But I wouldn't be bashing a Conservative or Reform MP for such a minor infraction, and therefore to remain consistent, I shouldn't criticize her either.
Reading between the lines, there was a bit more going on at that letting agency than they are admitting.
People don’t ‘suddenly resign’ without handover meetings unless there is something suboptimal in the background.
Under such circumstances it is very normal for such errors to occur - and people not want to talk about it.
People get walked off the premises if there’s a risk of client theft.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
"Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons."
After my header comprehensively eviscerating the Conservative Party’s Net Zero bashing for votes, senior Conservative voices from across the party are weighing in behind me, to back my argument.
Scrapping net zero targets is an extreme and unnecessary measure, that will alienate the electorate and bring no massive leap in support for the Conservatives. In fact it will fatally undermine Britain's global leadership on climate - as well as jobs and investment generated by the transition.
I - MoonRabbit - lead. The Conservative Party follows me, not Kemi.
I agree. The Tories need to head off Reform over immigration, the political consequences of which are existential, but not over issues like net zero which they can usefully use to contrast themselves to Reform, and reassure their traditional voters. I think Kemi has made a mistake.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
Equally (or even more) unpopular but, as you know, each frame of a video is considered under the law to be a different image. So, at 25 frames per second, those hundreds or thousands amass quickly.
Reeves was aware she needed a licence, but never paid for one
Whatever the estate agent has said, it remains the landlord's responsibility
A diligent person would have double-checked
The Chancellor ought to be the epitome of diligence
I never called for her to lose her job, and never really expected her to
I strongly contested, and continue to contest, the ludicrous notion the she could somehow be unaware of a policy that she had been campaigning in favour of for over eighteen months, before it affected her personally
Oh dear. Thoughts are with you at this difficult time.
Evening pb. Point #1: Due, I can only imagine, to my utter ineptitude, I have managed to post on two successive dead threads: ordinarily I would let this sort of thing slide, but I really enjoyed the photo - so with apologies, I will try again:
Posters may remember I was planning a trip to Glasgow. A full review to follow in due course. But in the meantime, the most Glaswegian image of the day from the adjacent table in the Willow Tea Rooms: Charles Rennie MacKintosh with Irn Bru.
Point #2: For the possible interest of @Theuniondivvie , @malcolmg, @Carnyx , @Fairliered and others who kindly supplied ideas for my trip north, some reflections: I really, really like Glasgow. My adored Morningside grandmother - for whom Glasgow was number 1 in a long, long list of things of which she disapproved - may turn in her grave at me saying this, but it may be my favourite British city. Edinburgh may be more beautiful, but to this Mancunian, Glasgow feels like a city should feel, only better. I'm struggling to put my finger on exactly why. Glasgow is bloody handsome, or course, but nit as beautiful as Edinburgh. Glasgow's things-to-do quotient is high - its tourist offer, its pubs, its restaurants - but again, surely Edinburgh can easily match it? It does, to this Mancunian, feel like a city should - the right size, the right buzziness, the slight edge - is it just that I am slightly suspicious of things being too nice? I think what it comes down to is the feeling that if you lived here you could have a really nice life. And to be young here must be - if not heaven itself, pretty close. Of course, you'd have to not mind the weather. I know people who have moved to Manchester because they couldn't cope with the rain in Glasgow any longer.
With thanks for everyone's suggestions, I have managed only a small handful. We stopped on the way to Aberfoyle and had lunch at the Griffin in that dead zone between tge city centre and the West End - the pub looked no better than miderately charming, but the food was amazing - then walked down to the Kelvingrove museum, which was brilliant - exactly what a museum should be and only a minimum of self-flagellation about the empire and climate change (compared to its counterpart in Manchester at least). Then, just as we were leaving, an organ recital! Yer actual toccata and fugue like a horror movie of old. And as we left, the sun came out, and the skyline of the university building: one of my favourite urban views in the country. [cont in a minute...]
I've known quite a few folk who claim Glasgow has more merit than Edinburgh. They appeared to be in possession of their senses and weren't registered blind or under the influence, so maybe there is something in their opinion but, really, truthfully, there is no comparison.
It's equivalent to saying Sunderland is superior to Newcastle. You can argue the case but, honestly...
No, I cautiously stand by it, for this primary reason: living costs are a material consideration of how nice a life you could have. And you could live rather sumptiously in one of Glasgow's better suburbs for the price of somewhere either cramped or inconvenient in Edinburgh. I would never attempt to argue the merits of Sunderland over Newcastle, even taking into account coat of living. But once you get over a threshold of "I could live here and feel I was having a good life" - which I think Glasgow offers - I think the living costs over Edinburgh give it the edge. Edinburgh is more beautiful - and drier, certainly. But is that enough? Maybe I am naturally predisposed to prefer places in the west...
Must agree to differ there. The combination of the New Town and the Old Town, the topography (Salisbury Crags, The Castle), the approach, the history, the culture: incomparable. You can spend days and days exploring Edinburgh. Possibly the most handsome city in the UK. Only London surpasses it, but then London is a genuine world city.
I just don't see how a Victorian industrial grid-planned settlement can compete, though I do quite like the west end.
My point is: if you were to offer me the choice of identically-sized four-bed semis on Morningside or Hillhead - well yes, I might plump for Morningside. (Though sitting in Glasgow saying that I feel awfully disloyal.) But that wouldn't be the choice, I don't think? (I haven't checked). It would be handsome four-bed semi in Hillhead or two-bed flat in Morningside/handsome four bed semi in inconvenient location with bad schools in Edinburgh. And in that eventuality, Glasgow would win. But I can absolutely understand the position of those who put up with less comfort or convenience in Edinburgh due to living costs for the benefit of living in one of the most beautiful cities in Europe.
London is a world city, but there's very little of it I'd describe as attractive or handsome and even that is being rapidly swamped by unattractive high rise office buildings
Just got back from a couple of weeks in Tangier, Fes and Marrakech (and places in between) and found myself remarking how handsome and attractive London looks to the objective eye.
You survived Tangier old town? I was grabbed a hold of and led through followed by demands for money for their guiding you. They don't steal, but they're not beyond putting their arm round your shoulder and almost dragging you...
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
Licenses for single family residence rentals are basically automatically granted, so -in terms of scale- it's not really comparable.
Do you still think that it was reasonable for her to not know she needed a licence, because you didn't know whether you needed one?
You weren't campaigning for selective landlord licensing in Jan 2023 were you?
Oh come on @BlancheLivermore, I was all for calling for Rayner's resignation because she dodged taxes (or at the very least took actions to remain ignorant of them). That was a serious offence: it was, I believe, an act of moral turpitude, and I have a very low tolerence for that.
In this case, she asked her agents to secure a license, and that didn't happen. Now, should she have checked? Yes. But there's no moral turpitude involved, no attempt to decieve or to obtain pecuniary advantage.
So, sure, she should have been more organized. But I wouldn't be bashing a Conservative or Reform MP for such a minor infraction, and therefore to remain consistent, I shouldn't criticize her either.
Reading between the lines, there was a bit more going on at that letting agency than they are admitting.
People don’t ‘suddenly resign’ without handover meetings unless there is something suboptimal in the background.
Under such circumstances it is very normal for such errors to occur - and people not want to talk about it.
xx
Letting agent I use for my parents' house collapses into a client-ignoring utter shambles if the sole competent property manager goes on a week's holiday. If they left it would be so much hassle we'd probably sell it.
Evening pb. Point #1: Due, I can only imagine, to my utter ineptitude, I have managed to post on two successive dead threads: ordinarily I would let this sort of thing slide, but I really enjoyed the photo - so with apologies, I will try again:
Posters may remember I was planning a trip to Glasgow. A full review to follow in due course. But in the meantime, the most Glaswegian image of the day from the adjacent table in the Willow Tea Rooms: Charles Rennie MacKintosh with Irn Bru.
Point #2: For the possible interest of @Theuniondivvie , @malcolmg, @Carnyx , @Fairliered and others who kindly supplied ideas for my trip north, some reflections: I really, really like Glasgow. My adored Morningside grandmother - for whom Glasgow was number 1 in a long, long list of things of which she disapproved - may turn in her grave at me saying this, but it may be my favourite British city. Edinburgh may be more beautiful, but to this Mancunian, Glasgow feels like a city should feel, only better. I'm struggling to put my finger on exactly why. Glasgow is bloody handsome, or course, but nit as beautiful as Edinburgh. Glasgow's things-to-do quotient is high - its tourist offer, its pubs, its restaurants - but again, surely Edinburgh can easily match it? It does, to this Mancunian, feel like a city should - the right size, the right buzziness, the slight edge - is it just that I am slightly suspicious of things being too nice? I think what it comes down to is the feeling that if you lived here you could have a really nice life. And to be young here must be - if not heaven itself, pretty close. Of course, you'd have to not mind the weather. I know people who have moved to Manchester because they couldn't cope with the rain in Glasgow any longer.
With thanks for everyone's suggestions, I have managed only a small handful. We stopped on the way to Aberfoyle and had lunch at the Griffin in that dead zone between tge city centre and the West End - the pub looked no better than miderately charming, but the food was amazing - then walked down to the Kelvingrove museum, which was brilliant - exactly what a museum should be and only a minimum of self-flagellation about the empire and climate change (compared to its counterpart in Manchester at least). Then, just as we were leaving, an organ recital! Yer actual toccata and fugue like a horror movie of old. And as we left, the sun came out, and the skyline of the university building: one of my favourite urban views in the country. [cont in a minute...]
The problem with Edinburgh is that, because it's so nice in so many ways, there are too many tourists. When I lived there I always felt that I was having to wade through tourists every time I was in the centre, and so the city felt a bit like a museum exhibit, or a large National Trust property, rather than a living city.
But I don't particularly like Glasgow. The urban motorway is such an ugly scar running through it.
The other problem with Edinburgh is that because it is so nice, and there are so many tourists, it is so very expensive. My contention is that you could have a much nicer quality of life in Glasgow given the amount you have to pay outin Edinburgh in housing costs. But I'd put both in my top five cities, along with Newcastle, Manchester and Sheffield. And if I'm honest Manchester only makes the cut for reasons personal to me: friends, family and the powerful (very, in my case) emotional pull of home.
The M8 isn't ideal, granted. But I'm 50 yards from it right now and it's not impacting me at all. I havemixed feelings about urban motorways. Where I livein Manchester, I can hear the M60 most of the time. Which is bad. It separates me from my nearest patch of green space - there are crossings, but they are unpleasant. I fantasise sometimes about a world in which it wasn't there. But it is so very very convenient...
There are plans to cover over the section of motorway opposite the Bon Accord and make a civic space.
I think the M8 is something to reflect on whenever we rail against the NIMBYs. Those who campaigned against it were right, and Glasgow is just one of many cities reversing those mistakes and replacing roads with parks, canals and public spaces.
And just look at the plans they had for Edinburgh...
Evening pb. Point #1: Due, I can only imagine, to my utter ineptitude, I have managed to post on two successive dead threads: ordinarily I would let this sort of thing slide, but I really enjoyed the photo - so with apologies, I will try again:
Posters may remember I was planning a trip to Glasgow. A full review to follow in due course. But in the meantime, the most Glaswegian image of the day from the adjacent table in the Willow Tea Rooms: Charles Rennie MacKintosh with Irn Bru.
Point #2: For the possible interest of @Theuniondivvie , @malcolmg, @Carnyx , @Fairliered and others who kindly supplied ideas for my trip north, some reflections: I really, really like Glasgow. My adored Morningside grandmother - for whom Glasgow was number 1 in a long, long list of things of which she disapproved - may turn in her grave at me saying this, but it may be my favourite British city. Edinburgh may be more beautiful, but to this Mancunian, Glasgow feels like a city should feel, only better. I'm struggling to put my finger on exactly why. Glasgow is bloody handsome, or course, but nit as beautiful as Edinburgh. Glasgow's things-to-do quotient is high - its tourist offer, its pubs, its restaurants - but again, surely Edinburgh can easily match it? It does, to this Mancunian, feel like a city should - the right size, the right buzziness, the slight edge - is it just that I am slightly suspicious of things being too nice? I think what it comes down to is the feeling that if you lived here you could have a really nice life. And to be young here must be - if not heaven itself, pretty close. Of course, you'd have to not mind the weather. I know people who have moved to Manchester because they couldn't cope with the rain in Glasgow any longer.
With thanks for everyone's suggestions, I have managed only a small handful. We stopped on the way to Aberfoyle and had lunch at the Griffin in that dead zone between tge city centre and the West End - the pub looked no better than miderately charming, but the food was amazing - then walked down to the Kelvingrove museum, which was brilliant - exactly what a museum should be and only a minimum of self-flagellation about the empire and climate change (compared to its counterpart in Manchester at least). Then, just as we were leaving, an organ recital! Yer actual toccata and fugue like a horror movie of old. And as we left, the sun came out, and the skyline of the university building: one of my favourite urban views in the country. [cont in a minute...]
I've known quite a few folk who claim Glasgow has more merit than Edinburgh. They appeared to be in possession of their senses and weren't registered blind or under the influence, so maybe there is something in their opinion but, really, truthfully, there is no comparison.
It's equivalent to saying Sunderland is superior to Newcastle. You can argue the case but, honestly...
No, I cautiously stand by it, for this primary reason: living costs are a material consideration of how nice a life you could have. And you could live rather sumptiously in one of Glasgow's better suburbs for the price of somewhere either cramped or inconvenient in Edinburgh. I would never attempt to argue the merits of Sunderland over Newcastle, even taking into account coat of living. But once you get over a threshold of "I could live here and feel I was having a good life" - which I think Glasgow offers - I think the living costs over Edinburgh give it the edge. Edinburgh is more beautiful - and drier, certainly. But is that enough? Maybe I am naturally predisposed to prefer places in the west...
Must agree to differ there. The combination of the New Town and the Old Town, the topography (Salisbury Crags, The Castle), the approach, the history, the culture: incomparable. You can spend days and days exploring Edinburgh. Possibly the most handsome city in the UK. Only London surpasses it, but then London is a genuine world city.
I just don't see how a Victorian industrial grid-planned settlement can compete, though I do quite like the west end.
My point is: if you were to offer me the choice of identically-sized four-bed semis on Morningside or Hillhead - well yes, I might plump for Morningside. (Though sitting in Glasgow saying that I feel awfully disloyal.) But that wouldn't be the choice, I don't think? (I haven't checked). It would be handsome four-bed semi in Hillhead or two-bed flat in Morningside/handsome four bed semi in inconvenient location with bad schools in Edinburgh. And in that eventuality, Glasgow would win. But I can absolutely understand the position of those who put up with less comfort or convenience in Edinburgh due to living costs for the benefit of living in one of the most beautiful cities in Europe.
London is a world city, but there's very little of it I'd describe as attractive or handsome and even that is being rapidly swamped by unattractive high rise office buildings
He who is tired of London's railway network is tired of life.
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
Licenses for single family residence rentals are basically automatically granted, so -in terms of scale- it's not really comparable.
Do you still think that it was reasonable for her to not know she needed a licence, because you didn't know whether you needed one?
You weren't campaigning for selective landlord licensing in Jan 2023 were you?
Oh come on @BlancheLivermore, I was all for calling for Rayner's resignation because she dodged taxes (or at the very least took actions to remain ignorant of them). That was a serious offence: it was, I believe, an act of moral turpitude, and I have a very low tolerence for that.
In this case, she asked her agents to secure a license, and that didn't happen. Now, should she have checked? Yes. But there's no moral turpitude involved, no attempt to decieve or to obtain pecuniary advantage.
So, sure, she should have been more organized. But I wouldn't be bashing a Conservative or Reform MP for such a minor infraction, and therefore to remain consistent, I shouldn't criticize her either.
Reading between the lines, there was a bit more going on at that letting agency than they are admitting.
People don’t ‘suddenly resign’ without handover meetings unless there is something suboptimal in the background.
Under such circumstances it is very normal for such errors to occur - and people not want to talk about it.
xx
Letting agent I use for my parents' house collapses into a client-ignoring utter shambles if the sole competent property manager goes on a week's holiday. If they left it would be so much hassle we'd probably sell it.
I once rented a room in a house where the whole company at the agent's office resigned one day. They were each managing 250 properties on close to minimum wage.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
To an extent I agree.
What is in the public domain is pretty convincing, and I expect the King has access to much more in depth investigation.
I would much rather see a public trial or at least enquiry into his activities with Epstein and Maxwell. I dont think we will see this, so it seems stripping him of his baubles is all we will see.
If there's not a TV show where Joe Marler solves real life cold cases, and gives the villains a hard stare from under his beanie during interview, very soon then spank my arse. Joe Marler: Big Dog Investigates.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
I don't get the insistence on applying the criminal standard of proof.
That standard exists because society has decided, rightly, not to apply the most serious sanctions where there is any element of doubt. And we're not - the artist formally known as Prince Andrew is not going to languish in a prison cell.
But he probably knew his good friend was sexually exploiting young girls, and probably took advantage of that for his own gratification.
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
Licenses for single family residence rentals are basically automatically granted, so -in terms of scale- it's not really comparable.
Do you still think that it was reasonable for her to not know she needed a licence, because you didn't know whether you needed one?
You weren't campaigning for selective landlord licensing in Jan 2023 were you?
Oh come on @BlancheLivermore, I was all for calling for Rayner's resignation because she dodged taxes (or at the very least took actions to remain ignorant of them). That was a serious offence: it was, I believe, an act of moral turpitude, and I have a very low tolerence for that.
In this case, she asked her agents to secure a license, and that didn't happen. Now, should she have checked? Yes. But there's no moral turpitude involved, no attempt to decieve or to obtain pecuniary advantage.
So, sure, she should have been more organized. But I wouldn't be bashing a Conservative or Reform MP for such a minor infraction, and therefore to remain consistent, I shouldn't criticize her either.
Reading between the lines, there was a bit more going on at that letting agency than they are admitting.
People don’t ‘suddenly resign’ without handover meetings unless there is something suboptimal in the background.
Under such circumstances it is very normal for such errors to occur - and people not want to talk about it.
People get walked off the premises if there’s a risk of client theft.
Surely even more reason for the boss to triple check the transactions they were working on, surely?
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
It's what we do, unfortunately, because humans are surprisingly rubbish. Scientists and professional investigators can, with training and effort and focus, overcome that rubbishness, but it doesn't come easy. Most of us, most of the time, are off-duty and don't have a damn clue.
See also the Epping escapee. It's absolutely right that he was punished, but there was also a hefty chunk of scapegoating in his treatment. The bad bit wasn't how the justice system treated him, but how it has failed to treat others whose actions were and are worse. But the communal hive mind is more satisfied by throwing the most visible offenders on the fire, rather than the worst.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
I don't get the insistence on applying the criminal standard of proof.
That standard exists because society has decided, rightly, not to apply the most serious sanctions where there is any element of doubt. And we're not - the artist formally known as Prince Andrew is not going to languish in a prison cell.
But he probably knew his good friend was sexually exploiting young girls, and probably took advantage of that for his own gratification.
Presumably he settled the civil case brought by Giuffre because he knew that he would most likely fail the civil standard of proof.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
"Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons."
Why?
How can the late Ms Giuffre give evidence? Why did the US criminal authorities not take any steps at all to investigate or charge him while she was still alive etc.,.
It is possible, I suppose, that others were present filming the encounter and it is pellucidly clear from such a film that she did not consent etc .,. (This is, BTW, the plot of "Earth", the second of John Boyne's Elements novel - and I can really recommend them, despite the dark subject matter.) But absent such evidence hard to see how any such charge can be made out.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
I agree. Although Mr Windsor’s various tall tails and twisting in the wind have greatly added to the gaiety of the nation (the sweat thing, the pizza express thing, etc.).
Perhaps because of the ludicrousness of the excuses and the position of Mr Windsor there has not been enough consideration of the victim/survivor at the heart of the story. And she was just one victim. There were others in that orbit, and others across the UK in relation to the subject of the past and future inquirie. In addition there are countless other victims (many, if not most, abused by family members or “friends”) who don’t fit into the current column inches. If anything I hope folk start thinking about what it is in society that does lead to such abuse, and how do we get better at preventing it and prosecuting the perpetrators whether they are from the Royal Family or just from the family.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
"Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons."
Why?
How can the late Ms Giuffre give evidence? Why did the US criminal authorities not take any steps at all to investigate or charge him while she was still alive etc.,.
It is possible, I suppose, that others were present filming the encounter and it is pellucidly clear from such a film that she did not consent etc .,. (This is, BTW, the plot of "Earth", the second of John Boyne's Elements novel - and I can really recommend them, despite the dark subject matter.) But absent such evidence hard to see how any such charge can be made out.
iirc there have been reports of multiple surveillance systems in the properties recording everything.
I guess we will have to wait for a Dem DoJ in around 2040 before we finally know...
I'm sure it won't encourage other states to do the same.
Putin and Kim are already doing so, Trump is right to do so in my view, he needs to show Russia, N Korea and China it isn't just them who can show off their nuclear warheads. Starmer and Macron could also follow suit
Naive, IMO. No one apart from N Korea has conducted weapons tests in decades.
The US has a large advantage in simulation, and would essentially be throwing that away if they normalised live bomb tests.
Not naive, the naivety is from left liberals who would let Putin and Kim and Xi walk all over them and do test after test of nuclear warhead capable missiles without response
Missiles are tested all the time. Remember the Trident fail?
The way this was worded suggests the actual warheads would be tested - which would be a new escalation.
Though yes, if you do a test keep it secret and only publicise it if successful.
We haven't tested even a nuclear warhead capable missile for years as far as I am aware
You are confusing a missle test with a nuclear test. Trump is talking about testing the bomb needlessly. Making the bomb go bang is easy. Making it go bang in the right place is the difficult bit. We, nor America, no longer need to test the bomb. America does need to test the missiles but they do do that anyway.
You can't keep a bomb detonation secret. It makes a rather big bang.
An interesting penultimate episode of The Traitors tonight.
Have you watched the American version? It's all reality TV stars. They're so much more conscious of it being a game. But no better at it. Much less personality.
An interesting penultimate episode of The Traitors tonight.
Have you watched the American version? It's all reality TV stars. They're so much more conscious of it being a game. But no better at it. Much less personality.
No, I watched the first 10 minutes of it by accident. I am watching the first Australian series and it's very interesting to see the differences between the UK and Australian shows.
If there's not a TV show where Joe Marler solves real life cold cases, and gives the villains a hard stare from under his beanie during interview, very soon then spank my arse. Joe Marler: Big Dog Investigates.
I'm sure it won't encourage other states to do the same.
Putin and Kim are already doing so, Trump is right to do so in my view, he needs to show Russia, N Korea and China it isn't just them who can show off their nuclear warheads. Starmer and Macron could also follow suit
He’s normalising bad behaviour.
Just like his pending invasion of Venezuela is designed to normalise Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Bet you he calls it a “special military operation” as well…
Putin is behaving badly. While it’s Russia and North Korea doing stuff it’s easy to condemn.
Far harder to maintain a strong line that it is wrong when the US does it as well. That’s what “normalisation” is.
Putin doesn't give a toss about strongly worded statements at the UN saying he is wrong, he will care about tests of raw nuclear missile power by the USA
No, he won't. That wouldn't change the existing deterrent effect of the US nuclear arsenal at all.
A few things would bother Putin. A couple would be their resuming military aid to Ukraine and/or the US recommitting to being NATO's guarantor. Another one would be the US building a genuine national ballistic missile defence - though that's a good decade off.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
To an extent I agree.
What is in the public domain is pretty convincing, and I expect the King has access to much more in depth investigation.
I would much rather see a public trial or at least enquiry into his activities with Epstein and Maxwell. I dont think we will see this, so it seems stripping him of his baubles is all we will see.
What is in the public domain is colourable. There is a certain amount of evidence suggesting that Ms Giuffre was not the most reliable or consistent of witnesses, one reason why she was not a prosecution witness in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. There may be many reasons why she was not considered reliable or used as a witness, some of which very likely arising from what was done to her. But nonetheless I note it because I dislike people ignoring potentially relevant evidence because it does not fit with the opinion they have already formed. And I see quite a lot of that happening in this matter.
Andrew is not a convicted criminal. He is a shameful embarrassment of a man and to his family.
An inquiry into Epstein and his associates, many of which included very senior people in business, politics and finance in the US and elsewhere would be extremely interesting. But we are not going to get it, are we, because those very senior people in politics, business, finance & elsewhere are successfully ensuring that their role and scummy / possibly criminal behaviour is ignored while an equally scummy royal provides the perfect distraction / scapegoat.
I'm sure it won't encourage other states to do the same.
Putin and Kim are already doing so, Trump is right to do so in my view, he needs to show Russia, N Korea and China it isn't just them who can show off their nuclear warheads. Starmer and Macron could also follow suit
Naive, IMO. No one apart from N Korea has conducted weapons tests in decades.
The US has a large advantage in simulation, and would essentially be throwing that away if they normalised live bomb tests.
Not naive, the naivety is from left liberals who would let Putin and Kim and Xi walk all over them and do test after test of nuclear warhead capable missiles without response
Missiles are tested all the time. Remember the Trident fail?
The way this was worded suggests the actual warheads would be tested - which would be a new escalation.
Though yes, if you do a test keep it secret and only publicise it if successful.
We haven't tested even a nuclear warhead capable missile for years as far as I am aware
You are confusing a missle test with a nuclear test. Trump is talking about testing the bomb needlessly. Making the bomb go bang is easy. Making it go bang in the right place is the difficult bit. We, nor America, no longer need to test the bomb. America does need to test the missiles but they do do that anyway.
You can't keep a bomb detonation secret. It makes a rather big bang.
Just more juvenile posturing from the 79 year old American president.
If there's not a TV show where Joe Marler solves real life cold cases, and gives the villains a hard stare from under his beanie during interview, very soon then spank my arse. Joe Marler: Big Dog Investigates.
He's been so good. "Pot, kettle."
Waits for them to garrolously hang themselves. Then a gentle "I'm not having it." What a catchphrase.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
In the court of public opinion he lied egregiously to Emily Maitlis. He took the public for mugs. That has to count for something.
The events of today and a fortnight ago are largely theatre to keep us plebs in line. He's off to a chocolate box cottage on the Sandringham Estate and not a bedsit above a chip shop in Winston Green, or even a cell in HMP Winston Green. Besides, there would appear to be a substantial number of worse offenders than Windsor. That said I believe the behaviour he has been censured for is head and shoulders more outrageous than that of Harry and Meghan, who don't seem, to my mind, to have done anything worthy of the withering condemnation they have received from GBNews, the Mail and the Express.
Charles and Camilla are not my King and Queen. Did I mention I caught Diana's eye on Cardiff Central Station once? Sigh...
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
Licenses for single family residence rentals are basically automatically granted, so -in terms of scale- it's not really comparable.
Do you still think that it was reasonable for her to not know she needed a licence, because you didn't know whether you needed one?
You weren't campaigning for selective landlord licensing in Jan 2023 were you?
Oh come on @BlancheLivermore, I was all for calling for Rayner's resignation because she dodged taxes (or at the very least took actions to remain ignorant of them). That was a serious offence: it was, I believe, an act of moral turpitude, and I have a very low tolerence for that.
In this case, she asked her agents to secure a license, and that didn't happen. Now, should she have checked? Yes. But there's no moral turpitude involved, no attempt to decieve or to obtain pecuniary advantage.
So, sure, she should have been more organized. But I wouldn't be bashing a Conservative or Reform MP for such a minor infraction, and therefore to remain consistent, I shouldn't criticize her either.
Reading between the lines, there was a bit more going on at that letting agency than they are admitting.
People don’t ‘suddenly resign’ without handover meetings unless there is something suboptimal in the background.
Under such circumstances it is very normal for such errors to occur - and people not want to talk about it.
People get walked off the premises if there’s a risk of client theft.
Surely even more reason for the boss to triple check the transactions they were working on, surely?
You’d think, but apparently not. At least they didn’t miss anything that killed someone.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
I don't get the insistence on applying the criminal standard of proof.
That standard exists because society has decided, rightly, not to apply the most serious sanctions where there is any element of doubt. And we're not - the artist formally known as Prince Andrew is not going to languish in a prison cell.
But he probably knew his good friend was sexually exploiting young girls, and probably took advantage of that for his own gratification.
Presumably he settled the civil case brought by Giuffre because he knew that he would most likely fail the civil standard of proof.
Possibly. More likely because he was told to get rid of the case by whatever means. Worth noting the settlement's terms. Much of what Ms Giuffre demanded she did not get. It was a disastrous settlement because it implied a guilty conscience, especially coupled with that dreadful interview. But in terms of concessions ie admissions of fault made to his accuser, she actually got pretty much nothing of what she demanded. Not that this matters in the court of public opinion but I am not tremendously keen on such a court when it comes to calling people criminals.
If there's not a TV show where Joe Marler solves real life cold cases, and gives the villains a hard stare from under his beanie during interview, very soon then spank my arse. Joe Marler: Big Dog Investigates.
I think the traitors made a major mistake not getting rid of Joe Marler much earlier in the series because he was always going to be awkward near the end.
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
Licenses for single family residence rentals are basically automatically granted, so -in terms of scale- it's not really comparable.
Do you still think that it was reasonable for her to not know she needed a licence, because you didn't know whether you needed one?
You weren't campaigning for selective landlord licensing in Jan 2023 were you?
Oh come on @BlancheLivermore, I was all for calling for Rayner's resignation because she dodged taxes (or at the very least took actions to remain ignorant of them). That was a serious offence: it was, I believe, an act of moral turpitude, and I have a very low tolerence for that.
In this case, she asked her agents to secure a license, and that didn't happen. Now, should she have checked? Yes. But there's no moral turpitude involved, no attempt to decieve or to obtain pecuniary advantage.
So, sure, she should have been more organized. But I wouldn't be bashing a Conservative or Reform MP for such a minor infraction, and therefore to remain consistent, I shouldn't criticize her either.
Reading between the lines, there was a bit more going on at that letting agency than they are admitting.
People don’t ‘suddenly resign’ without handover meetings unless there is something suboptimal in the background.
Under such circumstances it is very normal for such errors to occur - and people not want to talk about it.
People get walked off the premises if there’s a risk of client theft.
Surely even more reason for the boss to triple check the transactions they were working on, surely?
In a suburban estate agents? It would be lovely to think so, but...
I'm sure it won't encourage other states to do the same.
Putin and Kim are already doing so, Trump is right to do so in my view, he needs to show Russia, N Korea and China it isn't just them who can show off their nuclear warheads. Starmer and Macron could also follow suit
Naive, IMO. No one apart from N Korea has conducted weapons tests in decades.
The US has a large advantage in simulation, and would essentially be throwing that away if they normalised live bomb tests.
Not naive, the naivety is from left liberals who would let Putin and Kim and Xi walk all over them and do test after test of nuclear warhead capable missiles without response
Missiles are tested all the time. Remember the Trident fail?
The way this was worded suggests the actual warheads would be tested - which would be a new escalation.
Though yes, if you do a test keep it secret and only publicise it if successful.
We haven't tested even a nuclear warhead capable missile for years as far as I am aware
You are confusing a missle test with a nuclear test. Trump is talking about testing the bomb needlessly. Making the bomb go bang is easy. Making it go bang in the right place is the difficult bit. We, nor America, no longer need to test the bomb. America does need to test the missiles but they do do that anyway.
You can't keep a bomb detonation secret. It makes a rather big bang.
The US tests Trident and Minuteman missiles regularly. With a near perfect success rate.
Testing nuclear weapons was eventually stopped, decade ms ago.
It is possible to do small nuclear tests covertly. To a certain extent “tickling the dragon” - playing with near prompt critical assemblies - is nuclear testing. With yields of a few joules.
Modern warheads as pure fission devices on yield 300 tons of TNT (or so). Without fusion boosting, you could hide that. A large underground cavern with measures taken to attenuate shockwaves. Ted Taylor worked out a scheme, above ground, with a warehouse full of suspended spheres of graphite.
An all up test would be impossible to hide - it would register on earthquake detection systems world wide.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
To an extent I agree.
What is in the public domain is pretty convincing, and I expect the King has access to much more in depth investigation.
I would much rather see a public trial or at least enquiry into his activities with Epstein and Maxwell. I dont think we will see this, so it seems stripping him of his baubles is all we will see.
What is in the public domain is colourable. There is a certain amount of evidence suggesting that Ms Giuffre was not the most reliable or consistent of witnesses, one reason why she was not a prosecution witness in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. There may be many reasons why she was not considered reliable or used as a witness, some of which very likely arising from what was done to her. But nonetheless I note it because I dislike people ignoring potentially relevant evidence because it does not fit with the opinion they have already formed. And I see quite a lot of that happening in this matter.
Andrew is not a convicted criminal. He is a shameful embarrassment of a man and to his family.
An inquiry into Epstein and his associates, many of which included very senior people in business, politics and finance in the US and elsewhere would be extremely interesting. But we are not going to get it, are we, because those very senior people in politics, business, finance & elsewhere are successfully ensuring that their role and scummy / possibly criminal behaviour is ignored while an equally scummy royal provides the perfect distraction / scapegoat.
I'm not entirely sure about that. Bits and pieces are being leaked - and there are a very large number in both sides of the political divide in the US, who don't agree on anything else, but do want all the evidence that might exist to be published.
It's possible (though not very probable) that the dam will at some point burst.
Rachel Reeves is still chancellor after making an “inadvertent mistake” in failing to apply for a licence to let her family home in south London.
A brief excitement swept through Westminster this afternoon when No 10 said emails between the chancellor’s husband and the letting agent had “come to light”. They had not been published when this newsletter went out, but the lettings agency said it had apologised to Reeves for an “oversight” in not applying for a licence.
But Angela Rayner is no longer deputy prime minister after making a “mistake” in which she “acted with integrity”, according to the adviser on ministerial interests, in failing to pay the required amount of stamp duty on a property purchase.
The amounts of money involved may be similar, in that Reeves’s error may cost her not just the £945 for a licence but a year’s rent of £38,000 as well. Rayner is repaying an estimated £40,000 in additional stamp duty.
I have commented that it is hard to see the difference in principle between the two cases – and I speculate that the real difference is that Keir Starmer was content to see Rayner go but desperate to keep Reeves, an ally who is not a threat to his position, in place.
Licenses for single family residence rentals are basically automatically granted, so -in terms of scale- it's not really comparable.
Do you still think that it was reasonable for her to not know she needed a licence, because you didn't know whether you needed one?
You weren't campaigning for selective landlord licensing in Jan 2023 were you?
Oh come on @BlancheLivermore, I was all for calling for Rayner's resignation because she dodged taxes (or at the very least took actions to remain ignorant of them). That was a serious offence: it was, I believe, an act of moral turpitude, and I have a very low tolerence for that.
In this case, she asked her agents to secure a license, and that didn't happen. Now, should she have checked? Yes. But there's no moral turpitude involved, no attempt to decieve or to obtain pecuniary advantage.
So, sure, she should have been more organized. But I wouldn't be bashing a Conservative or Reform MP for such a minor infraction, and therefore to remain consistent, I shouldn't criticize her either.
Reading between the lines, there was a bit more going on at that letting agency than they are admitting.
People don’t ‘suddenly resign’ without handover meetings unless there is something suboptimal in the background.
Under such circumstances it is very normal for such errors to occur - and people not want to talk about it.
xx
Letting agent I use for my parents' house collapses into a client-ignoring utter shambles if the sole competent property manager goes on a week's holiday. If they left it would be so much hassle we'd probably sell it.
I once rented a room in a house where the whole company at the agent's office resigned one day. They were each managing 250 properties on close to minimum wage.
. I don't think that's the case at this letting agent, current contact replaced someone else, it went from total hassle to quiet competence, had same experience when I finally managed to replace the managing agent for the block of flats where I lived. From grifting lazy incompetence to efficient, productive management, some people are just good at their job but it's quite rare in letting agencies/property management
Evening pb. Point #1: Due, I can only imagine, to my utter ineptitude, I have managed to post on two successive dead threads: ordinarily I would let this sort of thing slide, but I really enjoyed the photo - so with apologies, I will try again:
Posters may remember I was planning a trip to Glasgow. A full review to follow in due course. But in the meantime, the most Glaswegian image of the day from the adjacent table in the Willow Tea Rooms: Charles Rennie MacKintosh with Irn Bru.
Point #2: For the possible interest of @Theuniondivvie , @malcolmg, @Carnyx , @Fairliered and others who kindly supplied ideas for my trip north, some reflections: I really, really like Glasgow. My adored Morningside grandmother - for whom Glasgow was number 1 in a long, long list of things of which she disapproved - may turn in her grave at me saying this, but it may be my favourite British city. Edinburgh may be more beautiful, but to this Mancunian, Glasgow feels like a city should feel, only better. I'm struggling to put my finger on exactly why. Glasgow is bloody handsome, or course, but nit as beautiful as Edinburgh. Glasgow's things-to-do quotient is high - its tourist offer, its pubs, its restaurants - but again, surely Edinburgh can easily match it? It does, to this Mancunian, feel like a city should - the right size, the right buzziness, the slight edge - is it just that I am slightly suspicious of things being too nice? I think what it comes down to is the feeling that if you lived here you could have a really nice life. And to be young here must be - if not heaven itself, pretty close. Of course, you'd have to not mind the weather. I know people who have moved to Manchester because they couldn't cope with the rain in Glasgow any longer.
With thanks for everyone's suggestions, I have managed only a small handful. We stopped on the way to Aberfoyle and had lunch at the Griffin in that dead zone between tge city centre and the West End - the pub looked no better than miderately charming, but the food was amazing - then walked down to the Kelvingrove museum, which was brilliant - exactly what a museum should be and only a minimum of self-flagellation about the empire and climate change (compared to its counterpart in Manchester at least). Then, just as we were leaving, an organ recital! Yer actual toccata and fugue like a horror movie of old. And as we left, the sun came out, and the skyline of the university building: one of my favourite urban views in the country. [cont in a minute...]
I've known quite a few folk who claim Glasgow has more merit than Edinburgh. They appeared to be in possession of their senses and weren't registered blind or under the influence, so maybe there is something in their opinion but, really, truthfully, there is no comparison.
It's equivalent to saying Sunderland is superior to Newcastle. You can argue the case but, honestly...
No, I cautiously stand by it, for this primary reason: living costs are a material consideration of how nice a life you could have. And you could live rather sumptiously in one of Glasgow's better suburbs for the price of somewhere either cramped or inconvenient in Edinburgh. I would never attempt to argue the merits of Sunderland over Newcastle, even taking into account coat of living. But once you get over a threshold of "I could live here and feel I was having a good life" - which I think Glasgow offers - I think the living costs over Edinburgh give it the edge. Edinburgh is more beautiful - and drier, certainly. But is that enough? Maybe I am naturally predisposed to prefer places in the west...
Glad you enjoyed your trip, and as someone who has lived in Edinburgh and Glasgow, I largely agree with your judgment. I lived a part of my very young life in Edinburgh, went to art school there and lived in it for several years afterwards. I think I had a romantic infatuation with the place but it has gradually withered away. Edinburgh has completely hoored itself to tourism and it’s steeped in the class system. The lower orders are kept in ghettos away from the beauteous parts and even the less awful parts of the ghettos (eg Leith) are having the oiks gentrified out. Glasgow of course has its affluent areas but there’s much more cheek by jowlism going on. The friendliness of Glaswegians is real, alongside an admirable reluctance to take seriously those up themselves. However. Not being a native of either I was never really into the tribal aspect between Edinburgh and Glasgow. I always thought it was fine that two great cities were within 40 minutes travel of each other, and still do.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
To an extent I agree.
What is in the public domain is pretty convincing, and I expect the King has access to much more in depth investigation.
I would much rather see a public trial or at least enquiry into his activities with Epstein and Maxwell. I dont think we will see this, so it seems stripping him of his baubles is all we will see.
What is in the public domain is colourable. There is a certain amount of evidence suggesting that Ms Giuffre was not the most reliable or consistent of witnesses, one reason why she was not a prosecution witness in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. There may be many reasons why she was not considered reliable or used as a witness, some of which very likely arising from what was done to her. But nonetheless I note it because I dislike people ignoring potentially relevant evidence because it does not fit with the opinion they have already formed. And I see quite a lot of that happening in this matter.
Andrew is not a convicted criminal. He is a shameful embarrassment of a man and to his family.
An inquiry into Epstein and his associates, many of which included very senior people in business, politics and finance in the US and elsewhere would be extremely interesting. But we are not going to get it, are we, because those very senior people in politics, business, finance & elsewhere are successfully ensuring that their role and scummy / possibly criminal behaviour is ignored while an equally scummy royal provides the perfect distraction / scapegoat.
Blackening the name and reputation of the victim is a tactic often used to prevent them going through with a court appearance. It was the reason that prosecutions for trafficking often didnt go forward in the North of England too.
There is potential evidence out there, all the flight logs for Epsteins private jet and passenger lists for example, and of course Maxwell herself. It seems that the President prefers to suspend the legislature to having the Epstein files published. I am sure many other famous names are also not wanting these published.
But there is very likely that there is enough evidence to convict or acquit at a criminal level. Giuffre describes multiple witnesses in her autobiography.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
In the court of public opinion he lied egregiously to Emily Maitlis. He took the public for mugs. That has to count for something.
The events of today and a fortnight ago are largely theatre to keep us plebs in line. He's off to a chocolate box cottage on the Sandringham Estate and not a bedsit above a chip shop in Winston Green, or even a cell in HMP Winston Green. Besides, there would appear to be a substantial number of worse offenders than Windsor. That said I believe the behaviour he has been censured for is head and shoulders more outrageous than that of Harry and Meghan, who don't seem, to my mind, to have done anything worthy of the withering condemnation they have received from GBNews, the Mail and the Express.
Charles and Camilla are not my King and Queen. Did I mention I caught Diana's eye on Cardiff Central Station once? Sigh...
I found it curious that at one point during the civil action, Ms Giuffre's lawyers said they would call Meghan as a witness. Why?
I doubt we will ever know the full story around Epstein's activities because too many senior people, overwhelmingly in the US, do not want the stories to come out. It is the US political and business establishment which should be shamed above all by Epstein. And it's not - and we should be much crosser about that than we are.
Harry & Meghan told a whole load of lies about their family which doubtless pissed off those family members. But they are an irrelevance and like Andrew I have no desire to hear from or about them ever again.
I'm sure it won't encourage other states to do the same.
Putin and Kim are already doing so, Trump is right to do so in my view, he needs to show Russia, N Korea and China it isn't just them who can show off their nuclear warheads. Starmer and Macron could also follow suit
Naive, IMO. No one apart from N Korea has conducted weapons tests in decades.
The US has a large advantage in simulation, and would essentially be throwing that away if they normalised live bomb tests.
Not naive, the naivety is from left liberals who would let Putin and Kim and Xi walk all over them and do test after test of nuclear warhead capable missiles without response
Missiles are tested all the time. Remember the Trident fail?
The way this was worded suggests the actual warheads would be tested - which would be a new escalation.
Though yes, if you do a test keep it secret and only publicise it if successful.
We haven't tested even a nuclear warhead capable missile for years as far as I am aware
You are confusing a missle test with a nuclear test. Trump is talking about testing the bomb needlessly. Making the bomb go bang is easy. Making it go bang in the right place is the difficult bit. We, nor America, no longer need to test the bomb. America does need to test the missiles but they do do that anyway.
You can't keep a bomb detonation secret. It makes a rather big bang.
The US tests Trident and Minuteman missiles regularly. With a near perfect success rate.
Testing nuclear weapons was eventually stopped, decade ms ago.
It is possible to do small nuclear tests covertly. To a certain extent “tickling the dragon” - playing with near prompt critical assemblies - is nuclear testing. With yields of a few joules.
Modern warheads as pure fission devices on yield 300 tons of TNT (or so). Without fusion boosting, you could hide that. A large underground cavern with measures taken to attenuate shockwaves. Ted Taylor worked out a scheme, above ground, with a warehouse full of suspended spheres of graphite.
An all up test would be impossible to hide - it would register on earthquake detection systems world wide.
Surely though a large point of doing the testing is to ensure other parties know about it. That is very much what Trumps threats are about.
One thing I don't understand about Andrew is didn't he ever have any national security experts advising him on who was and wasn't a good idea to spend time with? They could have told him it was bad for national security to spend time with certain people.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
In the court of public opinion he lied egregiously to Emily Maitlis. He took the public for mugs. That has to count for something.
The events of today and a fortnight ago are largely theatre to keep us plebs in line. He's off to a chocolate box cottage on the Sandringham Estate and not a bedsit above a chip shop in Winston Green, or even a cell in HMP Winston Green. Besides, there would appear to be a substantial number of worse offenders than Windsor. That said I believe the behaviour he has been censured for is head and shoulders more outrageous than that of Harry and Meghan, who don't seem, to my mind, to have done anything worthy of the withering condemnation they have received from GBNews, the Mail and the Express.
Charles and Camilla are not my King and Queen. Did I mention I caught Diana's eye on Cardiff Central Station once? Sigh...
I found it curious that at one point during the civil action, Ms Giuffre's lawyers said they would call Meghan as a witness. Why?
I doubt we will ever know the full story around Epstein's activities because too many senior people, overwhelmingly in the US, do not want the stories to come out. It is the US political and business establishment which should be shamed above all by Epstein. And it's not - and we should be much crosser about that than we are.
Harry & Meghan told a whole load of lies about their family which doubtless pissed off those family members. But they are an irrelevance and like Andrew I have no desire to hear from or about them ever again.
It’s a genetic lottery, the monarchy. You are kinda stuck with the people the sausage machine churns out.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
To an extent I agree.
What is in the public domain is pretty convincing, and I expect the King has access to much more in depth investigation.
I would much rather see a public trial or at least enquiry into his activities with Epstein and Maxwell. I dont think we will see this, so it seems stripping him of his baubles is all we will see.
What is in the public domain is colourable. There is a certain amount of evidence suggesting that Ms Giuffre was not the most reliable or consistent of witnesses, one reason why she was not a prosecution witness in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. There may be many reasons why she was not considered reliable or used as a witness, some of which very likely arising from what was done to her. But nonetheless I note it because I dislike people ignoring potentially relevant evidence because it does not fit with the opinion they have already formed. And I see quite a lot of that happening in this matter.
Andrew is not a convicted criminal. He is a shameful embarrassment of a man and to his family.
An inquiry into Epstein and his associates, many of which included very senior people in business, politics and finance in the US and elsewhere would be extremely interesting. But we are not going to get it, are we, because those very senior people in politics, business, finance & elsewhere are successfully ensuring that their role and scummy / possibly criminal behaviour is ignored while an equally scummy royal provides the perfect distraction / scapegoat.
Blackening the name and reputation of the victim is a tactic often used to prevent them going through with a court appearance. It was the reason that prosecutions for trafficking often didnt go forward in the North of England too.
There is potential evidence out there, all the flight logs for Epsteins private jet and passenger lists for example, and of course Maxwell herself. It seems that the President prefers to suspend the legislature to having the Epstein files published. I am sure many other famous names are also not wanting these published.
But there is very likely that there is enough evidence to convict or acquit at a criminal level. Giuffre describes multiple witnesses in her autobiography.
Her autobiography is not, I think, tremendously reliable. There were multiple versions of it. Some of it was described by her as "fictionalised" and so on. I have yet to understand why the US criminal authorities never used any of the evidence that was available years ago to take action against the very many men who abused those girls. Too important in the US to challenge I guess.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
In the court of public opinion he lied egregiously to Emily Maitlis. He took the public for mugs. That has to count for something.
The events of today and a fortnight ago are largely theatre to keep us plebs in line. He's off to a chocolate box cottage on the Sandringham Estate and not a bedsit above a chip shop in Winston Green, or even a cell in HMP Winston Green. Besides, there would appear to be a substantial number of worse offenders than Windsor. That said I believe the behaviour he has been censured for is head and shoulders more outrageous than that of Harry and Meghan, who don't seem, to my mind, to have done anything worthy of the withering condemnation they have received from GBNews, the Mail and the Express.
Charles and Camilla are not my King and Queen. Did I mention I caught Diana's eye on Cardiff Central Station once? Sigh...
I found it curious that at one point during the civil action, Ms Giuffre's lawyers said they would call Meghan as a witness. Why?
I doubt we will ever know the full story around Epstein's activities because too many senior people, overwhelmingly in the US, do not want the stories to come out. It is the US political and business establishment which should be shamed above all by Epstein. And it's not - and we should be much crosser about that than we are.
Harry & Meghan told a whole load of lies about their family which doubtless pissed off those family members. But they are an irrelevance and like Andrew I have no desire to hear from or about them ever again.
It’s a genetic lottery, the monarchy. You are kinda stuck with the people the sausage machine churns out.
After the Liz Truss catastrophe, my firm Focaldata conducted a match-up between Starmer and the new Conservative prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Three years ago, when 80 per cent of the public were collectively voting Conservative or Labour, voters were already telling us that Starmer and Sunak — and the Conservative and Labour parties by extension — had similar personal atmospherics. Voters saw both as intelligent, hard-working and out of touch. Only 3 per cent thought Sunak had a sense of humour and 4 per cent thought the same for Starmer, with very low levels of voters believing either had empathy.
This double dose of serious politicians shorn of quip or charisma made the British electoral system vulnerable to left and right populism. The trouble with an electoral pitch focused on “the grown-ups” is that all earnestness is brittle. Labour’s fall in vote share since the 2024 election, its fastest ever, derives from the party’s flawed hypothesis that Britain simply required a new Brahmin class of highly serious-sounding people
Brilliant by James Kanagasooriam : “Holding forth as people’s betters only works if you are actually better at your job….confusing a serious demeanour with being actually serious is at the heart of our country’s problems.”
Evening pb. Point #1: Due, I can only imagine, to my utter ineptitude, I have managed to post on two successive dead threads: ordinarily I would let this sort of thing slide, but I really enjoyed the photo - so with apologies, I will try again:
Posters may remember I was planning a trip to Glasgow. A full review to follow in due course. But in the meantime, the most Glaswegian image of the day from the adjacent table in the Willow Tea Rooms: Charles Rennie MacKintosh with Irn Bru.
Point #2: For the possible interest of @Theuniondivvie , @malcolmg, @Carnyx , @Fairliered and others who kindly supplied ideas for my trip north, some reflections: I really, really like Glasgow. My adored Morningside grandmother - for whom Glasgow was number 1 in a long, long list of things of which she disapproved - may turn in her grave at me saying this, but it may be my favourite British city. Edinburgh may be more beautiful, but to this Mancunian, Glasgow feels like a city should feel, only better. I'm struggling to put my finger on exactly why. Glasgow is bloody handsome, or course, but nit as beautiful as Edinburgh. Glasgow's things-to-do quotient is high - its tourist offer, its pubs, its restaurants - but again, surely Edinburgh can easily match it? It does, to this Mancunian, feel like a city should - the right size, the right buzziness, the slight edge - is it just that I am slightly suspicious of things being too nice? I think what it comes down to is the feeling that if you lived here you could have a really nice life. And to be young here must be - if not heaven itself, pretty close. Of course, you'd have to not mind the weather. I know people who have moved to Manchester because they couldn't cope with the rain in Glasgow any longer.
With thanks for everyone's suggestions, I have managed only a small handful. We stopped on the way to Aberfoyle and had lunch at the Griffin in that dead zone between tge city centre and the West End - the pub looked no better than miderately charming, but the food was amazing - then walked down to the Kelvingrove museum, which was brilliant - exactly what a museum should be and only a minimum of self-flagellation about the empire and climate change (compared to its counterpart in Manchester at least). Then, just as we were leaving, an organ recital! Yer actual toccata and fugue like a horror movie of old. And as we left, the sun came out, and the skyline of the university building: one of my favourite urban views in the country. [cont in a minute...]
I've known quite a few folk who claim Glasgow has more merit than Edinburgh. They appeared to be in possession of their senses and weren't registered blind or under the influence, so maybe there is something in their opinion but, really, truthfully, there is no comparison.
It's equivalent to saying Sunderland is superior to Newcastle. You can argue the case but, honestly...
No, I cautiously stand by it, for this primary reason: living costs are a material consideration of how nice a life you could have. And you could live rather sumptiously in one of Glasgow's better suburbs for the price of somewhere either cramped or inconvenient in Edinburgh. I would never attempt to argue the merits of Sunderland over Newcastle, even taking into account coat of living. But once you get over a threshold of "I could live here and feel I was having a good life" - which I think Glasgow offers - I think the living costs over Edinburgh give it the edge. Edinburgh is more beautiful - and drier, certainly. But is that enough? Maybe I am naturally predisposed to prefer places in the west...
Must agree to differ there. The combination of the New Town and the Old Town, the topography (Salisbury Crags, The Castle), the approach, the history, the culture: incomparable. You can spend days and days exploring Edinburgh. Possibly the most handsome city in the UK. Only London surpasses it, but then London is a genuine world city.
I just don't see how a Victorian industrial grid-planned settlement can compete, though I do quite like the west end.
My point is: if you were to offer me the choice of identically-sized four-bed semis on Morningside or Hillhead - well yes, I might plump for Morningside. (Though sitting in Glasgow saying that I feel awfully disloyal.) But that wouldn't be the choice, I don't think? (I haven't checked). It would be handsome four-bed semi in Hillhead or two-bed flat in Morningside/handsome four bed semi in inconvenient location with bad schools in Edinburgh. And in that eventuality, Glasgow would win. But I can absolutely understand the position of those who put up with less comfort or convenience in Edinburgh due to living costs for the benefit of living in one of the most beautiful cities in Europe.
London is a world city, but there's very little of it I'd describe as attractive or handsome and even that is being rapidly swamped by unattractive high rise office buildings
The view of St Paul's and the City from Blackfriars Station. Greenwich naval college. The view from Telegraph Hill. Parliament Square. St Pancras station. The South Bank on a sunny day. Wren's churches. Borough Market. Dulwich Park. Some of my favourite beautiful spots in London, one of the greenest and most liveable big cities on the planet.
Evening pb. Point #1: Due, I can only imagine, to my utter ineptitude, I have managed to post on two successive dead threads: ordinarily I would let this sort of thing slide, but I really enjoyed the photo - so with apologies, I will try again:
Posters may remember I was planning a trip to Glasgow. A full review to follow in due course. But in the meantime, the most Glaswegian image of the day from the adjacent table in the Willow Tea Rooms: Charles Rennie MacKintosh with Irn Bru.
Point #2: For the possible interest of @Theuniondivvie , @malcolmg, @Carnyx , @Fairliered and others who kindly supplied ideas for my trip north, some reflections: I really, really like Glasgow. My adored Morningside grandmother - for whom Glasgow was number 1 in a long, long list of things of which she disapproved - may turn in her grave at me saying this, but it may be my favourite British city. Edinburgh may be more beautiful, but to this Mancunian, Glasgow feels like a city should feel, only better. I'm struggling to put my finger on exactly why. Glasgow is bloody handsome, or course, but nit as beautiful as Edinburgh. Glasgow's things-to-do quotient is high - its tourist offer, its pubs, its restaurants - but again, surely Edinburgh can easily match it? It does, to this Mancunian, feel like a city should - the right size, the right buzziness, the slight edge - is it just that I am slightly suspicious of things being too nice? I think what it comes down to is the feeling that if you lived here you could have a really nice life. And to be young here must be - if not heaven itself, pretty close. Of course, you'd have to not mind the weather. I know people who have moved to Manchester because they couldn't cope with the rain in Glasgow any longer.
With thanks for everyone's suggestions, I have managed only a small handful. We stopped on the way to Aberfoyle and had lunch at the Griffin in that dead zone between tge city centre and the West End - the pub looked no better than miderately charming, but the food was amazing - then walked down to the Kelvingrove museum, which was brilliant - exactly what a museum should be and only a minimum of self-flagellation about the empire and climate change (compared to its counterpart in Manchester at least). Then, just as we were leaving, an organ recital! Yer actual toccata and fugue like a horror movie of old. And as we left, the sun came out, and the skyline of the university building: one of my favourite urban views in the country. [cont in a minute...]
I've known quite a few folk who claim Glasgow has more merit than Edinburgh. They appeared to be in possession of their senses and weren't registered blind or under the influence, so maybe there is something in their opinion but, really, truthfully, there is no comparison.
It's equivalent to saying Sunderland is superior to Newcastle. You can argue the case but, honestly...
No, I cautiously stand by it, for this primary reason: living costs are a material consideration of how nice a life you could have. And you could live rather sumptiously in one of Glasgow's better suburbs for the price of somewhere either cramped or inconvenient in Edinburgh. I would never attempt to argue the merits of Sunderland over Newcastle, even taking into account coat of living. But once you get over a threshold of "I could live here and feel I was having a good life" - which I think Glasgow offers - I think the living costs over Edinburgh give it the edge. Edinburgh is more beautiful - and drier, certainly. But is that enough? Maybe I am naturally predisposed to prefer places in the west...
Must agree to differ there. The combination of the New Town and the Old Town, the topography (Salisbury Crags, The Castle), the approach, the history, the culture: incomparable. You can spend days and days exploring Edinburgh. Possibly the most handsome city in the UK. Only London surpasses it, but then London is a genuine world city.
I just don't see how a Victorian industrial grid-planned settlement can compete, though I do quite like the west end.
My point is: if you were to offer me the choice of identically-sized four-bed semis on Morningside or Hillhead - well yes, I might plump for Morningside. (Though sitting in Glasgow saying that I feel awfully disloyal.) But that wouldn't be the choice, I don't think? (I haven't checked). It would be handsome four-bed semi in Hillhead or two-bed flat in Morningside/handsome four bed semi in inconvenient location with bad schools in Edinburgh. And in that eventuality, Glasgow would win. But I can absolutely understand the position of those who put up with less comfort or convenience in Edinburgh due to living costs for the benefit of living in one of the most beautiful cities in Europe.
London is a world city, but there's very little of it I'd describe as attractive or handsome and even that is being rapidly swamped by unattractive high rise office buildings
Kensington and Chelsea, Hampstead, Richmond upon Thames, Westminster, plenty of handsome, attractive and even beautiful buildings around there
Also Greenwich, Holland Park, Chiswick Mall and Barnes Village, Highgate, and parts of Notting Hill. All beautiful parts of one of the world's few truly great cities.
Though one of the charms of London is finding gems and quirkiness amongst mediocrity, like the postbox tree in Barons Court, the Mosaic Tile House in Chiswick or the weird community on Eel Pie Island.
London is like that. There's always something you've missed.
One thing I don't understand about Andrew is didn't he ever have any national security experts advising him on who was and wasn't a good idea to spend time with? They could have told him it was bad for national security to spend time with certain people.
You'd have thought so. Maybe they did. And he ignored them. The stupid fool. Why no-one else put their foot down and said "no", God knows. Sometimes in families there are people who cannot be helped and who cannot be controlled, once adult. But the security/blackmail implications should surely have worried someone in government .....
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
In the court of public opinion he lied egregiously to Emily Maitlis. He took the public for mugs. That has to count for something.
The events of today and a fortnight ago are largely theatre to keep us plebs in line. He's off to a chocolate box cottage on the Sandringham Estate and not a bedsit above a chip shop in Winston Green, or even a cell in HMP Winston Green. Besides, there would appear to be a substantial number of worse offenders than Windsor. That said I believe the behaviour he has been censured for is head and shoulders more outrageous than that of Harry and Meghan, who don't seem, to my mind, to have done anything worthy of the withering condemnation they have received from GBNews, the Mail and the Express.
Charles and Camilla are not my King and Queen. Did I mention I caught Diana's eye on Cardiff Central Station once? Sigh...
I found it curious that at one point during the civil action, Ms Giuffre's lawyers said they would call Meghan as a witness. Why?
I doubt we will ever know the full story around Epstein's activities because too many senior people, overwhelmingly in the US, do not want the stories to come out. It is the US political and business establishment which should be shamed above all by Epstein. And it's not - and we should be much crosser about that than we are.
Harry & Meghan told a whole load of lies about their family which doubtless pissed off those family members. But they are an irrelevance and like Andrew I have no desire to hear from or about them ever again.
I suspect an awful lot of Epstein material will reach the public eye. Were it not for the orange guy, I suspect we would have seen the names of them all. The names already mentioned would appear to be Dems and there is an awful lot of detail from court proceedings involving Ms Roberts that left leaning politicians from both inside and outside the US were involved and to a disgusting extent.
The conspiracy theory rabbit holes I go down with YouTube suggest that Epstein and ********* were Mossad agents and the collected kompromat on substantial World figures from the 1990s is quite a collection of what we once knew as under the counter videos.
One thing I don't understand about Andrew is didn't he ever have any national security experts advising him on who was and wasn't a good idea to spend time with? They could have told him it was bad for national security to spend time with certain people.
I get the impression that Andrew would get rid of anyone who told him something he didn't want to hear.
A lot of people are unwilling to listen to advice that is inconvenient.
I'm sure it won't encourage other states to do the same.
Putin and Kim are already doing so, Trump is right to do so in my view, he needs to show Russia, N Korea and China it isn't just them who can show off their nuclear warheads. Starmer and Macron could also follow suit
Naive, IMO. No one apart from N Korea has conducted weapons tests in decades.
The US has a large advantage in simulation, and would essentially be throwing that away if they normalised live bomb tests.
Not naive, the naivety is from left liberals who would let Putin and Kim and Xi walk all over them and do test after test of nuclear warhead capable missiles without response
Missiles are tested all the time. Remember the Trident fail?
The way this was worded suggests the actual warheads would be tested - which would be a new escalation.
Though yes, if you do a test keep it secret and only publicise it if successful.
We haven't tested even a nuclear warhead capable missile for years as far as I am aware
You are confusing a missle test with a nuclear test. Trump is talking about testing the bomb needlessly. Making the bomb go bang is easy. Making it go bang in the right place is the difficult bit. We, nor America, no longer need to test the bomb. America does need to test the missiles but they do do that anyway.
You can't keep a bomb detonation secret. It makes a rather big bang.
The US tests Trident and Minuteman missiles regularly. With a near perfect success rate.
Testing nuclear weapons was eventually stopped, decade ms ago.
It is possible to do small nuclear tests covertly. To a certain extent “tickling the dragon” - playing with near prompt critical assemblies - is nuclear testing. With yields of a few joules.
Modern warheads as pure fission devices on yield 300 tons of TNT (or so). Without fusion boosting, you could hide that. A large underground cavern with measures taken to attenuate shockwaves. Ted Taylor worked out a scheme, above ground, with a warehouse full of suspended spheres of graphite.
An all up test would be impossible to hide - it would register on earthquake detection systems world wide.
Surely though a large point of doing the testing is to ensure other parties know about it. That is very much what Trumps threats are about.
But everyone knows America can do it and have existing capabilities so what is the point?
I'm sure it won't encourage other states to do the same.
Putin and Kim are already doing so, Trump is right to do so in my view, he needs to show Russia, N Korea and China it isn't just them who can show off their nuclear warheads. Starmer and Macron could also follow suit
Naive, IMO. No one apart from N Korea has conducted weapons tests in decades.
The US has a large advantage in simulation, and would essentially be throwing that away if they normalised live bomb tests.
Not naive, the naivety is from left liberals who would let Putin and Kim and Xi walk all over them and do test after test of nuclear warhead capable missiles without response
Missiles are tested all the time. Remember the Trident fail?
The way this was worded suggests the actual warheads would be tested - which would be a new escalation.
Though yes, if you do a test keep it secret and only publicise it if successful.
We haven't tested even a nuclear warhead capable missile for years as far as I am aware
You are confusing a missle test with a nuclear test. Trump is talking about testing the bomb needlessly. Making the bomb go bang is easy. Making it go bang in the right place is the difficult bit. We, nor America, no longer need to test the bomb. America does need to test the missiles but they do do that anyway.
You can't keep a bomb detonation secret. It makes a rather big bang.
The US tests Trident and Minuteman missiles regularly. With a near perfect success rate.
Testing nuclear weapons was eventually stopped, decade ms ago.
It is possible to do small nuclear tests covertly. To a certain extent “tickling the dragon” - playing with near prompt critical assemblies - is nuclear testing. With yields of a few joules.
Modern warheads as pure fission devices on yield 300 tons of TNT (or so). Without fusion boosting, you could hide that. A large underground cavern with measures taken to attenuate shockwaves. Ted Taylor worked out a scheme, above ground, with a warehouse full of suspended spheres of graphite.
An all up test would be impossible to hide - it would register on earthquake detection systems world wide.
Surely though a large point of doing the testing is to ensure other parties know about it. That is very much what Trumps threats are about.
Not really. Once you have a significant number of weapons, and have demonstrated their viability, then subsequent testing isn't particularly needed.
Trump's threats are largely pointless bluster, and are likely to annoy the professionals who are responsible for maintaining the US nuclear deterrent.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
I don't get the insistence on applying the criminal standard of proof.
That standard exists because society has decided, rightly, not to apply the most serious sanctions where there is any element of doubt. And we're not - the artist formally known as Prince Andrew is not going to languish in a prison cell.
But he probably knew his good friend was sexually exploiting young girls, and probably took advantage of that for his own gratification.
Presumably he settled the civil case brought by Giuffre because he knew that he would most likely fail the civil standard of proof.
Possibly. More likely because he was told to get rid of the case by whatever means. Worth noting the settlement's terms. Much of what Ms Giuffre demanded she did not get. It was a disastrous settlement because it implied a guilty conscience, especially coupled with that dreadful interview. But in terms of concessions ie admissions of fault made to his accuser, she actually got pretty much nothing of what she demanded. Not that this matters in the court of public opinion but I am not tremendously keen on such a court when it comes to calling people criminals.
Jim Acosta @Acosta Epstein survivors have fired off this letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson demanding that he swear in AZ representative-elect @AdelitaForAZ who would be the decisive vote for the discharge petition that would compel the release of the Epstein files. “Our trauma is not a pawn in your political games,” the letter states.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
Agree 100%. Innocent until proven guilty applies to him as much as anyone else, no matter how disliked he is.
In the court of public opinion he lied egregiously to Emily Maitlis. He took the public for mugs. That has to count for something.
The events of today and a fortnight ago are largely theatre to keep us plebs in line. He's off to a chocolate box cottage on the Sandringham Estate and not a bedsit above a chip shop in Winston Green, or even a cell in HMP Winston Green. Besides, there would appear to be a substantial number of worse offenders than Windsor. That said I believe the behaviour he has been censured for is head and shoulders more outrageous than that of Harry and Meghan, who don't seem, to my mind, to have done anything worthy of the withering condemnation they have received from GBNews, the Mail and the Express.
Charles and Camilla are not my King and Queen. Did I mention I caught Diana's eye on Cardiff Central Station once? Sigh...
I found it curious that at one point during the civil action, Ms Giuffre's lawyers said they would call Meghan as a witness. Why?
I doubt we will ever know the full story around Epstein's activities because too many senior people, overwhelmingly in the US, do not want the stories to come out. It is the US political and business establishment which should be shamed above all by Epstein. And it's not - and we should be much crosser about that than we are.
Harry & Meghan told a whole load of lies about their family which doubtless pissed off those family members. But they are an irrelevance and like Andrew I have no desire to hear from or about them ever again.
It’s a genetic lottery, the monarchy. You are kinda stuck with the people the sausage machine churns out.
But this isn't true. Britain's constitutional monarchy has involved choosing the Monarch several times.
Furthermore, the spare has been problematic three times in a row (after saving the day in the generation before that). Perhaps there's an element of nurture involved? Hopefully Charlotte will be better looked after. It's a psychologically interesting position to be in.
One thing I don't understand about Andrew is didn't he ever have any national security experts advising him on who was and wasn't a good idea to spend time with? They could have told him it was bad for national security to spend time with certain people.
Since those security experts were unable to advise pretty much all of the royal family and various leading politicians that Savile was a wrong ‘un, I’m not sure how much advising was going on.
I am fed up with people calling Andrew a nonce. I have spelt out what my view of him is on here on earlier threads. It is not remotely flattering, to put it mildly.
But he has not been charged let alone convicted of anything. Nor will he be in relation to the late Ms Giuffre for obvious reasons.
And given this society's abysmal failures to deal properly or at all with actual nonces and men who have been convicted of very serious crimes - I will remind you that far too many men convicted of the possession of hundreds, thousands even of the worst category of child abuse images - each of which is evidence of a crime -avoid jail - thus leaving them entirely free to continue with their revolting harmful activities, the focus on Andrew seems to me to be displacement activity of the worst and most futile kind.
We can have lots of outrage directed at one individual while blithely ignoring our failure to do anything about the actual criminals in our midst. The inquiry about the banned subject announced several months ago will likely not even get started until next year, a year after it all kicked off and decades after many of the crimes. Many of those covered by the IICSA Reports will never receive justice and virtually all of those responsible for the crimes it covers have escaped any sort of accountability, naming or shaming. But hey shouting abuse at a stupid ex-royal - well that'll make some feel better even if it does damn all for any of the victims. And so we can feel self-righteous and good about ourselves - apparently the only metric which matters these days - while continuing to do nothing effective about the criminals or for the victims.
It's pathetic.
To an extent I agree.
What is in the public domain is pretty convincing, and I expect the King has access to much more in depth investigation.
I would much rather see a public trial or at least enquiry into his activities with Epstein and Maxwell. I dont think we will see this, so it seems stripping him of his baubles is all we will see.
What is in the public domain is colourable. There is a certain amount of evidence suggesting that Ms Giuffre was not the most reliable or consistent of witnesses, one reason why she was not a prosecution witness in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. There may be many reasons why she was not considered reliable or used as a witness, some of which very likely arising from what was done to her. But nonetheless I note it because I dislike people ignoring potentially relevant evidence because it does not fit with the opinion they have already formed. And I see quite a lot of that happening in this matter.
Andrew is not a convicted criminal. He is a shameful embarrassment of a man and to his family.
An inquiry into Epstein and his associates, many of which included very senior people in business, politics and finance in the US and elsewhere would be extremely interesting. But we are not going to get it, are we, because those very senior people in politics, business, finance & elsewhere are successfully ensuring that their role and scummy / possibly criminal behaviour is ignored while an equally scummy royal provides the perfect distraction / scapegoat.
Blackening the name and reputation of the victim is a tactic often used to prevent them going through with a court appearance. It was the reason that prosecutions for trafficking often didnt go forward in the North of England too.
There is potential evidence out there, all the flight logs for Epsteins private jet and passenger lists for example, and of course Maxwell herself. It seems that the President prefers to suspend the legislature to having the Epstein files published. I am sure many other famous names are also not wanting these published.
But there is very likely that there is enough evidence to convict or acquit at a criminal level. Giuffre describes multiple witnesses in her autobiography.
Her autobiography is not, I think, tremendously reliable. There were multiple versions of it. Some of it was described by her as "fictionalised" and so on. I have yet to understand why the US criminal authorities never used any of the evidence that was available years ago to take action against the very many men who abused those girls. Too important in the US to challenge I guess.
It is exactly the modus operandi of these grooming gangs to pick on young women and girls who are marginalised and easy to compromise and blackmail. We even see it at the public enquiry here, with the unedifying spats the other week.
I'm sure it won't encourage other states to do the same.
Putin and Kim are already doing so, Trump is right to do so in my view, he needs to show Russia, N Korea and China it isn't just them who can show off their nuclear warheads. Starmer and Macron could also follow suit
Naive, IMO. No one apart from N Korea has conducted weapons tests in decades.
The US has a large advantage in simulation, and would essentially be throwing that away if they normalised live bomb tests.
Not naive, the naivety is from left liberals who would let Putin and Kim and Xi walk all over them and do test after test of nuclear warhead capable missiles without response
Missiles are tested all the time. Remember the Trident fail?
The way this was worded suggests the actual warheads would be tested - which would be a new escalation.
Though yes, if you do a test keep it secret and only publicise it if successful.
We haven't tested even a nuclear warhead capable missile for years as far as I am aware
You are confusing a missle test with a nuclear test. Trump is talking about testing the bomb needlessly. Making the bomb go bang is easy. Making it go bang in the right place is the difficult bit. We, nor America, no longer need to test the bomb. America does need to test the missiles but they do do that anyway.
You can't keep a bomb detonation secret. It makes a rather big bang.
The US tests Trident and Minuteman missiles regularly. With a near perfect success rate.
Testing nuclear weapons was eventually stopped, decade ms ago.
It is possible to do small nuclear tests covertly. To a certain extent “tickling the dragon” - playing with near prompt critical assemblies - is nuclear testing. With yields of a few joules.
Modern warheads as pure fission devices on yield 300 tons of TNT (or so). Without fusion boosting, you could hide that. A large underground cavern with measures taken to attenuate shockwaves. Ted Taylor worked out a scheme, above ground, with a warehouse full of suspended spheres of graphite.
An all up test would be impossible to hide - it would register on earthquake detection systems world wide.
Surely though a large point of doing the testing is to ensure other parties know about it. That is very much what Trumps threats are about.
There are three reasons to test
1) testing/retesting a particular design. One question is how even small manufacturing changes over decades years have an effect. The B61 was designed in 1963… another is new ideas. 2) refining the hydrocodes. This is the term for the models of nuclear reactions used to simulate tests. Interestingly, the ones that exist are full of fiddle factors - added numbers where reality and theory don’t match. There’s a fascinating one to do with the phases of plutonium, so they say… the US and the USSRvhad different answers… 3) Willy waving.
One thing I don't understand about Andrew is didn't he ever have any national security experts advising him on who was and wasn't a good idea to spend time with? They could have told him it was bad for national security to spend time with certain people.
Since those security experts were unable to advise pretty much all of the royal family and various leading politicians that Savile was a wrong ‘un, I’m not sure how much advising was going on.
The Royal protection officers may be much more involved than conveniently looking away.
I'm sure it won't encourage other states to do the same.
Putin and Kim are already doing so, Trump is right to do so in my view, he needs to show Russia, N Korea and China it isn't just them who can show off their nuclear warheads. Starmer and Macron could also follow suit
Naive, IMO. No one apart from N Korea has conducted weapons tests in decades.
The US has a large advantage in simulation, and would essentially be throwing that away if they normalised live bomb tests.
Not naive, the naivety is from left liberals who would let Putin and Kim and Xi walk all over them and do test after test of nuclear warhead capable missiles without response
Missiles are tested all the time. Remember the Trident fail?
The way this was worded suggests the actual warheads would be tested - which would be a new escalation.
Though yes, if you do a test keep it secret and only publicise it if successful.
We haven't tested even a nuclear warhead capable missile for years as far as I am aware
You are confusing a missle test with a nuclear test. Trump is talking about testing the bomb needlessly. Making the bomb go bang is easy. Making it go bang in the right place is the difficult bit. We, nor America, no longer need to test the bomb. America does need to test the missiles but they do do that anyway.
You can't keep a bomb detonation secret. It makes a rather big bang.
The US tests Trident and Minuteman missiles regularly. With a near perfect success rate.
Testing nuclear weapons was eventually stopped, decade ms ago.
It is possible to do small nuclear tests covertly. To a certain extent “tickling the dragon” - playing with near prompt critical assemblies - is nuclear testing. With yields of a few joules.
Modern warheads as pure fission devices on yield 300 tons of TNT (or so). Without fusion boosting, you could hide that. A large underground cavern with measures taken to attenuate shockwaves. Ted Taylor worked out a scheme, above ground, with a warehouse full of suspended spheres of graphite.
An all up test would be impossible to hide - it would register on earthquake detection systems world wide.
Surely though a large point of doing the testing is to ensure other parties know about it. That is very much what Trumps threats are about.
Not really. Once you have a significant number of weapons, and have demonstrated their viability, then subsequent testing isn't particularly needed.
Trump's threats are largely pointless bluster, and are likely to annoy the professionals who are responsible for maintaining the US nuclear deterrent.
Actually, the people maintaining the stockpile would like a regular, probably yearly, test.
Long memories of the Polaris arming wire from the early days.
Maybe Andrew free of his titles and forced to slum it in a cottage might now spill the beans for the right price ! I remember the days when he was lauded as a hero for going to the Falklands .
If there's not a TV show where Joe Marler solves real life cold cases, and gives the villains a hard stare from under his beanie during interview, very soon then spank my arse. Joe Marler: Big Dog Investigates.
I think the traitors made a major mistake not getting rid of Joe Marler much earlier in the series because he was always going to be awkward near the end.
Joe Marler is not really, er, considered the greatest brain in rugby. Yet put him among those working in the entertainment industry and he appears like Albert bloody Einstein.
One thing I don't understand about Andrew is didn't he ever have any national security experts advising him on who was and wasn't a good idea to spend time with? They could have told him it was bad for national security to spend time with certain people.
Since those security experts were unable to advise pretty much all of the royal family and various leading politicians that Savile was a wrong ‘un, I’m not sure how much advising was going on.
The Royal protection officers may be much more involved than conveniently looking away.
I remember reading this a few weeks ago. I have no idea if true, but I know a Royal protection officer (or was, he is now head of security at one of the palaces). He was responsible for one of the main royals (not Andrew). His grade was Inspector. He didn't and doesn't really have the contacts or grade to do that.
If there's not a TV show where Joe Marler solves real life cold cases, and gives the villains a hard stare from under his beanie during interview, very soon then spank my arse. Joe Marler: Big Dog Investigates.
I think the traitors made a major mistake not getting rid of Joe Marler much earlier in the series because he was always going to be awkward near the end.
Joe Marler is not really, er, considered the greatest brain in rugby. Yet put him among those working in the entertainment industry and he appears like Albert bloody Einstein.
Front rows are always the most erudite surely? To be fair I was never a Marler fan, but his podcast has shown him to be more than the cartoon character / crass arsehole he came across on the field of play.
I haven’t watched Traitors ever, but even if he isn’t the smartest bloke going I think he does have an interest in other people. Which considering most celebrities appear to have little interest beyond their own reflection probably puts him at an advantage (I would assume alongside the historian fella at least) in a game of working out what other people are doing and why.
I'm sure it won't encourage other states to do the same.
Putin and Kim are already doing so, Trump is right to do so in my view, he needs to show Russia, N Korea and China it isn't just them who can show off their nuclear warheads. Starmer and Macron could also follow suit
Naive, IMO. No one apart from N Korea has conducted weapons tests in decades.
The US has a large advantage in simulation, and would essentially be throwing that away if they normalised live bomb tests.
Not naive, the naivety is from left liberals who would let Putin and Kim and Xi walk all over them and do test after test of nuclear warhead capable missiles without response
Missiles are tested all the time. Remember the Trident fail?
The way this was worded suggests the actual warheads would be tested - which would be a new escalation.
Though yes, if you do a test keep it secret and only publicise it if successful.
We haven't tested even a nuclear warhead capable missile for years as far as I am aware
You are confusing a missle test with a nuclear test. Trump is talking about testing the bomb needlessly. Making the bomb go bang is easy. Making it go bang in the right place is the difficult bit. We, nor America, no longer need to test the bomb. America does need to test the missiles but they do do that anyway.
You can't keep a bomb detonation secret. It makes a rather big bang.
The US tests Trident and Minuteman missiles regularly. With a near perfect success rate.
Testing nuclear weapons was eventually stopped, decade ms ago.
It is possible to do small nuclear tests covertly. To a certain extent “tickling the dragon” - playing with near prompt critical assemblies - is nuclear testing. With yields of a few joules.
Modern warheads as pure fission devices on yield 300 tons of TNT (or so). Without fusion boosting, you could hide that. A large underground cavern with measures taken to attenuate shockwaves. Ted Taylor worked out a scheme, above ground, with a warehouse full of suspended spheres of graphite.
An all up test would be impossible to hide - it would register on earthquake detection systems world wide.
Surely though a large point of doing the testing is to ensure other parties know about it. That is very much what Trumps threats are about.
Not really. Once you have a significant number of weapons, and have demonstrated their viability, then subsequent testing isn't particularly needed.
Trump's threats are largely pointless bluster, and are likely to annoy the professionals who are responsible for maintaining the US nuclear deterrent.
Actually, the people maintaining the stockpile would like a regular, probably yearly, test.
Long memories of the Polaris arming wire from the early days.
Con 46.82% [-2.53] Ref 30.22% [new] Lab 11.96% [-14.80] Grn 5.68% [-2.36] LD 3.03% [-2.16] Rejoin EU 2.29% [new]
No Ind, previously 10.65%
Kemi still ensuring the Conservatives keep a solid hold on the Jewish vote then, indeed on that swing more British Jews now going Reform than Labour after Starmer's recognition of Palestine before Hamas released all the hostages.
Con 46.82% [-2.53] Ref 30.22% [new] Lab 11.96% [-14.80] Grn 5.68% [-2.36] LD 3.03% [-2.16] Rejoin EU 2.29% [new]
No Ind, previously 10.65%
Kemi still ensuring the Conservatives keep a solid hold on the Jewish vote then, indeed on that swing more British Jews now going Reform than Labour after Starmer's recognition of Palestine before Hamas released all the hostages.
Barnet could be a Con gain from Labour next year
Agree. This is a pretty shocking result for Labour.
In a postscript to my evening in Glasgow - unable to sleep, I went down to the hotel lobby where I had a couple of drinks with a goth band who have been supporting Fields of the Nephilm, and Gordon Strachan's nephew.
In a postscript to my evening in Glasgow - unable to sleep, I went down to the hotel lobby where I had a couple of drinks with a goth band who have been supporting Fields of the Nephilm, and Gordon Strachan's nephew.
I visited the Willow Tea Rooms a couple of weeks ago, and I think I must have been sitting close to where that earlier photo was taken. Marvellous place.
Comments
Thats Integration
That’s Integration
La-La-La-La-La”
Unacceptable behaviour': Fury as London councillors campaign to be elected politicians in Bangladesh
The Government said it was ‘unacceptable’ that councillors representing constituents in east London are campaigning to become MPs in Bangladesh
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-councillors-campaign-elected-bangladesh-tower-hamlets-b1255393.html
Why?
He has to be up for the next Strictly host. You heard it here first.
A
S
H
And just look at the plans they had for Edinburgh...
What is in the public domain is pretty convincing, and I expect the King has access to much more in depth investigation.
I would much rather see a public trial or at least enquiry into his activities with Epstein and Maxwell. I dont think we will see this, so it seems stripping him of his baubles is all we will see.
Joe Marler: Big Dog Investigates.
That standard exists because society has decided, rightly, not to apply the most serious sanctions where there is any element of doubt. And we're not - the artist formally known as Prince Andrew is not going to languish in a prison cell.
But he probably knew his good friend was sexually exploiting young girls, and probably took advantage of that for his own gratification.
See also the Epping escapee. It's absolutely right that he was punished, but there was also a hefty chunk of scapegoating in his treatment. The bad bit wasn't how the justice system treated him, but how it has failed to treat others whose actions were and are worse. But the communal hive mind is more satisfied by throwing the most visible offenders on the fire, rather than the worst.
It is possible, I suppose, that others were present filming the encounter and it is pellucidly clear from such a film that she did not consent etc .,. (This is, BTW, the plot of "Earth", the second of John Boyne's Elements novel - and I can really recommend them, despite the dark subject matter.) But absent such evidence hard to see how any such charge can be made out.
Perhaps because of the ludicrousness of the excuses and the position of Mr Windsor there has not been enough consideration of the victim/survivor at the heart of the story. And she was just one victim. There were others in that orbit, and others across the UK in relation to the subject of the past and future inquirie. In addition there are countless other victims (many, if not most, abused by family members or “friends”) who don’t fit into the current column inches. If anything I hope folk start thinking about what it is in society that does lead to such abuse, and how do we get better at preventing it and prosecuting the perpetrators whether they are from the Royal Family or just from the family.
I guess we will have to wait for a Dem DoJ in around 2040 before we finally know...
(Also Clive Myrie is great but needs to do his jacket up when standing and doing a piece to camera. This is the BBC ffs).
You can't keep a bomb detonation secret. It makes a rather big bang.
It's all reality TV stars.
They're so much more conscious of it being a game.
But no better at it. Much less personality.
That wouldn't change the existing deterrent effect of the US nuclear arsenal at all.
A few things would bother Putin.
A couple would be their resuming military aid to Ukraine and/or the US recommitting to being NATO's guarantor.
Another one would be the US building a genuine national ballistic missile defence - though that's a good decade off.
Andrew is not a convicted criminal. He is a shameful embarrassment of a man and to his family.
An inquiry into Epstein and his associates, many of which included very senior people in business, politics and finance in the US and elsewhere would be extremely interesting. But we are not going to get it, are we, because those very senior people in politics, business, finance & elsewhere are successfully ensuring that their role and scummy / possibly criminal behaviour is ignored while an equally scummy royal provides the perfect distraction / scapegoat.
What a catchphrase.
The events of today and a fortnight ago are largely theatre to keep us plebs in line. He's off to a chocolate box cottage on the Sandringham Estate and not a bedsit above a chip shop in Winston Green, or even a cell in HMP Winston Green. Besides, there would appear to be a substantial number of worse offenders than Windsor. That said I believe the behaviour he has been censured for is head and shoulders more outrageous than that of Harry and Meghan, who don't seem, to my mind, to have done anything worthy of the withering condemnation they have received from GBNews, the Mail and the Express.
Charles and Camilla are not my King and Queen. Did I mention I caught Diana's eye on Cardiff Central Station once? Sigh...
https://news.sky.com/story/prince-andrew-to-leave-royal-lodge-as-king-begins-process-to-remove-his-titles-13460931
Testing nuclear weapons was eventually stopped, decade ms ago.
It is possible to do small nuclear tests covertly. To a certain extent “tickling the dragon” - playing with near prompt critical assemblies - is nuclear testing. With yields of a few joules.
Modern warheads as pure fission devices on yield 300 tons of TNT (or so). Without fusion boosting, you could hide that. A large underground cavern with measures taken to attenuate shockwaves. Ted Taylor worked out a scheme, above ground, with a warehouse full of suspended spheres of graphite.
An all up test would be impossible to hide - it would register on earthquake detection systems world wide.
Bits and pieces are being leaked - and there are a very large number in both sides of the political divide in the US, who don't agree on anything else, but do want all the evidence that might exist to be published.
It's possible (though not very probable) that the dam will at some point burst.
I don't think that's the case at this letting agent, current contact replaced someone else, it went from total hassle to quiet competence, had same experience when I finally managed to replace the managing agent for the block of flats where I lived. From grifting lazy incompetence to efficient, productive management, some people are just good at their job but it's quite rare in letting agencies/property management
I lived a part of my very young life in Edinburgh, went to art school there and lived in it for several years afterwards. I think I had a romantic infatuation with the place but it has gradually withered away. Edinburgh has completely hoored itself to tourism and it’s steeped in the class system. The lower orders are kept in ghettos away from the beauteous parts and even the less awful parts of the ghettos (eg Leith) are having the oiks gentrified out. Glasgow of course has its affluent areas but there’s much more cheek by jowlism going on. The friendliness of Glaswegians is real, alongside an admirable reluctance to take seriously those up themselves.
However.
Not being a native of either I was never really into the tribal aspect between Edinburgh and Glasgow. I always thought it was fine that two great cities were within 40 minutes travel of each other, and still do.
There is potential evidence out there, all the flight logs for Epsteins private jet and passenger lists for example, and of course Maxwell herself. It seems that the President prefers to suspend the legislature to having the Epstein files published. I am sure many other famous names are also not wanting these published.
But there is very likely that there is enough evidence to convict or acquit at a criminal level. Giuffre describes multiple witnesses in her autobiography.
I doubt we will ever know the full story around Epstein's activities because too many senior people, overwhelmingly in the US, do not want the stories to come out. It is the US political and business establishment which should be shamed above all by Epstein. And it's not - and we should be much crosser about that than we are.
Harry & Meghan told a whole load of lies about their family which doubtless pissed off those family members. But they are an irrelevance and like Andrew I have no desire to hear from or about them ever again.
After the Liz Truss catastrophe, my firm Focaldata conducted a match-up between Starmer and the new Conservative prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Three years ago, when 80 per cent of the public were collectively voting Conservative or Labour, voters were already telling us that Starmer and Sunak — and the Conservative and Labour parties by extension — had similar personal atmospherics. Voters saw both as intelligent, hard-working and out of touch. Only 3 per cent thought Sunak had a sense of humour and 4 per cent thought the same for Starmer, with very low levels of voters believing either had empathy.
This double dose of serious politicians shorn of quip or charisma made the British electoral system vulnerable to left and right populism. The trouble with an electoral pitch focused on “the grown-ups” is that all earnestness is brittle. Labour’s fall in vote share since the 2024 election, its fastest ever, derives from the party’s flawed hypothesis that Britain simply required a new Brahmin class of highly serious-sounding people
Brilliant by James Kanagasooriam : “Holding forth as people’s betters only works if you are actually better at your job….confusing a serious demeanour with being actually serious is at the heart of our country’s problems.”
Enjoy this article for free.
https://x.com/trevorptweets/status/1983959351065809350?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Though one of the charms of London is finding gems and quirkiness amongst mediocrity, like the postbox tree in Barons Court, the Mosaic Tile House in Chiswick or the weird community on Eel Pie Island.
London is like that. There's always something you've missed.
The conspiracy theory rabbit holes I go down with YouTube suggest that Epstein and ********* were Mossad agents and the collected kompromat on substantial World figures from the 1990s is quite a collection of what we once knew as under the counter videos.
A lot of people are unwilling to listen to advice that is inconvenient.
Once you have a significant number of weapons, and have demonstrated their viability, then subsequent testing isn't particularly needed.
Trump's threats are largely pointless bluster, and are likely to annoy the professionals who are responsible for maintaining the US nuclear deterrent.
Jim Acosta
@Acosta
Epstein survivors have fired off this letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson demanding that he swear in AZ representative-elect
@AdelitaForAZ
who would be the decisive vote for the discharge petition that would compel the release of the Epstein files. “Our trauma is not a pawn in your political games,” the letter states.
https://x.com/Acosta/status/1984008215714046306
Furthermore, the spare has been problematic three times in a row (after saving the day in the generation before that). Perhaps there's an element of nurture involved? Hopefully Charlotte will be better looked after. It's a psychologically interesting position to be in.
1) testing/retesting a particular design. One question is how even small manufacturing changes over decades years have an effect. The B61 was designed in 1963… another is new ideas.
2) refining the hydrocodes. This is the term for the models of nuclear reactions used to simulate tests. Interestingly, the ones that exist are full of fiddle factors - added numbers where reality and theory don’t match. There’s a fascinating one to do with the phases of plutonium, so they say… the US and the USSRvhad different answers…
3) Willy waving.
https://news.sky.com/story/senior-king-aide-was-head-of-royal-protection-when-prince-andrew-asked-officer-to-dig-up-dirt-on-accuser-13454369
Long memories of the Polaris arming wire from the early days.
They don’t push for it, because that’s politics.
They want it from the engineering side of things.
First Preference Votes
SNP 808
Lab 530
Rfm 517
Con 147
Grn 141
LD 79
SNP 36.36% [+1.80]
Lab 23.85% [-1.67]
Rfm 23.27% [+9.18]
Con 6.62% [-5.61]
Grn 6.35% [+1.30]
LD 3.56% [+0.64]
No Ind, previously -> 5.64%
Talk about a fall from grace .
It’s more than Prince Andrew – the whole House of Windsor is rotten to the core
By Will Lloyd"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/10/abolish-the-monarchy
Yet put him among those working in the entertainment industry and he appears like Albert bloody Einstein.
I haven’t watched Traitors ever, but even if he isn’t the smartest bloke going I think he does have an interest in other people. Which considering most celebrities appear to have little interest beyond their own reflection probably puts him at an advantage (I would assume alongside the historian fella at least) in a game of working out what other people are doing and why.
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2025/oct/30/nabil-shaban-obituary
St Johns ward was LD even before Brexit, so the result is not a great surprise
Rfm 513
Lab 353
Con 157
LDm 148
Grn 139
Rfm 39.16% [new]
Lab 26.95% [-12.39]
Con 11.98% [-11.45]
LD 11.30% [-5.47]
Grn 10.61% [-4.87]
No TUSC, previously 4.98%
Thanet, Garlinge - Reform Gain
Rfm 348
Con 250
Lab 62
Grn 61
LDm 36
Ind 24
Rfm 44.56% [new]
Con 32.01% [+10.59]
Lab 7.94% [-12.30]
Grn 7.81% [-1.33]
LD 4.61% [new]
Ind 3.07% [new]
No Thanet Ind, previously 49.20%
Worcestershire, Bromsgrove South
Lib Dem GAIN from Reform
LD 1416
Ref 911
Con 309
Lab 92
LD 51.91% [+20.27]
Ref 33.39% [-1.46]
Con 11.33% [-5.75]
Lab 3.37% [-4.13]
No Grn, previously 5.55%
No Ind, previously 3.39%
Con 1,656
Ref 1,069
Lab 423
Grn 201
LD 107
Rejoin EU 81
Electorate 14,051
Valid votes 3,537
Turnout 25.17%
https://x.com/nlygo/status/1984051148681257296
Con 46.82% [-2.53]
Ref 30.22% [new]
Lab 11.96% [-14.80]
Grn 5.68% [-2.36]
LD 3.03% [-2.16]
Rejoin EU 2.29% [new]
No Ind, previously 10.65%
Barnet could be a Con gain from Labour next year
Funny old world.