Someone should ask Vance, who encouraged his followers to get anyone commented in a similar manner about Kirk's murder fired from their jobs, for his reaction.
Monkfish is a nickname my wife uses for at least two of our children. It seemed more fun than 'monkey'. I was a bit let down when I saw a photo of a monkfish. Even for a fish, it's an ugly fish.
When I did A level Zoology back in the ‘50’s we spent a considerable amount of time dissecting dogfish. Put me off fish for life. I’m OK with shellfish, prawns etc., though.
The government is asking Apple and Google to prevent people from looking at nude pictures on their phones unless they submit to an age verification check:
Grate potato and some onion. Put this mixture into a tea towel and squeeze out as much liquid as you can. Add some eggs and a bit of flour (doesn't really matter what sort). Form into pancakes and fry. (Hanukkah requires fried food.) Serve with soured cream.
So, what, 31 people have posted in this thread? So at least 4 of you have had threesomes.
It’s all fun and games until you get to the logistics. Figuring out who goes where, when, and how is just so mechanical and sorting out all beforehand just lacks spontaneity. And there’s nothing worse than feeling left out in a threesome, so I hear.
Off topic, but your discussion of banks made me wonder whether UK banks have ATMs with this feature: The ATM at my local Chase branch will accept checks -- and cash. I use the first occasionally. (By using my bank card, I can get into where the ATM is, even when the bank is closed.)
In general ATMs accepting cheques are inside branches. The problem here it seems is that the bank has stopped processing cheques through third parties including post offices, and also the multibank "banking hubs" set up to maintain service in towns where they have closed branches.
Lack of joined up thinking in short.
It's conceivable, but not likely, that you'll be able to pay in a cheque by making an appointment with the bank's rep on their day at the Banking Hub premises.
With Starling Bank you pay in a cheque by taking a photo of it with the app.
My two recent-ish hires didn't know what cheques were. Never even encountered them. And I admit myself - the last time I used a cheque was in about 2006.
Yep, they are gone the way of cash...
I pay my water bill by cheque just to piss them off
The government is asking Apple and Google to prevent people from looking at nude pictures on their phones unless they submit to an age verification check:
It would seem Labour will not rest in their quest to age-gate the entire internet.
I propose the following. All communications between public servants shall be conducted on a government run platform.
I could get a fork of Signal ready for this, for a few million, in 3 months.
All communications will be archived and recorded.
*Attempting* to use other communication channels is Misconduct In A Public Office
It already is. When I work for government I'm not allowed to use anything else (disciplinary action would follow). In fact I'm working on a project now where I don't have the phone number for a single colleague.
It seems to be mostly ministers who have trouble following this rule.
So, what, 31 people have posted in this thread? So at least 4 of you have had threesomes.
It’s all fun and games until you get to the logistics. Figuring out who goes where, when, and how is just so mechanical and sorting out all beforehand just lacks spontaneity. And there’s nothing worse than feeling left out in a threesome, so I hear.
As with many things, if you all get on well and can have a chuckle when things go wrong, it works out fine.
So, what, 31 people have posted in this thread? So at least 4 of you have had threesomes.
It’s all fun and games until you get to the logistics. Figuring out who goes where, when, and how is just so mechanical and sorting out all beforehand just lacks spontaneity. And there’s nothing worse than feeling left out in a threesome, so I hear.
As with many things, if you all get on well and can have a chuckle when things go wrong, it works out fine.
The government is asking Apple and Google to prevent people from looking at nude pictures on their phones unless they submit to an age verification check:
It fits within the long and dignified history of Presidential remarks, to be remembered down the eons.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!
There's something wrong with the Vanilla like system: that deserved about 50 likes.l
The government is asking Apple and Google to prevent people from looking at nude pictures on their phones unless they submit to an age verification check:
What are the odds that there are more goals at Old Trafford this evening than runs scored by the England top three in their first innings in a few hours?
So, what, 31 people have posted in this thread? So at least 4 of you have had threesomes.
Cue NPXMP !
A threesome essentially fell into my lap when I was 18. On holiday on the Costa Blanca. Two young ladies offered to jump into bed with me. And I turned it down. Because I had not up to then had a twosome, and obscurely felt I ought to work up to it. Take them on one at a time, as it were. Such a shit reason for turning down a threesome. I still regret it.
The government is asking Apple and Google to prevent people from looking at nude pictures on their phones unless they submit to an age verification check:
The government is asking Apple and Google to prevent people from looking at nude pictures on their phones unless they submit to an age verification check:
It fits within the long and dignified history of Presidential remarks, to be remembered down the eons.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!
I really don't know why anyone has even pretended to be shocked or, among his supporters, why they would act like they don't like this stuff.
Sure, there are some amongst them who probably find him crass and offensive but think he is the best option for party and country regardless, but given how they act generally, and the lowering of tone all over the political divide, it is pretty clear that such remarks are exactly what a majority of his supporters want from him, even on such an occasion.
The doctrines of the populist right do indeed contain much to condemn. Yet talking about them in apocalyptic terms is doomed to fail. For their own sake, and for the good of their countries, mainstream politicians and their supporters urgently need a different approach.
If demonisation is failing, what is the alternative? The answer starts with that impatience for change which the populist right harnesses so successfully—and which this newspaper shares.
For Britain, France and Germany, European economic integration is the most obvious source of growth. Yet the populists are set on a collision course with the European Union, which would lead to growth-destroying degradation of the single market. On other issues, populists latch onto discontent, but propose solutions that are foolish.
If mainstream politicians spend it shrilly demonising populists, they will doubtless make themselves feel better, but they will not help their countries. They would be wiser to subject governments-in-waiting to the democratic scrutiny they deserve.
The Economist is completely wrong - European economic integration might do a tiny bit to boost economic growth, but it be lost in the noise, especially for this country. It would inevitably focus on manufactured goods, which are not where we have a comparative advantage, because liberalising services is much more difficult, both practically and politically, and services are less likely to be traded. Trade with the EU is a relatively small part of our economy - exports to the EU are only about 13% of GDP. And liberalising trade with the EU comes with all sorts of constraints on sovereignty, which are exactly what made Brexit more than a fringe movement in the first place, and was perhaps the second biggest factor, after immigration, in the rise of UKIP/Reform.
The most obvious way to boost growth is to focus on competitiveness throughout the economy - deregulating product and labour markets, getting malingerers off welfare and reducing the size of the public sector. Just cutting size of the state by 3% of GDP, reversing the planned increases since Labour took power, should increase GDP by 2-3% over the long run, more if it's done in a pro-growth way, and much more than any realistic boost from closer ties with the EU, whatever the more absurd studies say.
By "completely wrong" I think you mean "doesn't agree with my priors".
Mind you, we are all guilty of that.
If trade within the EU is so awesome, how come their growth is not rocketing?
It might help, but it’s not a panacea for the U.K.
Fishing reckons a possible 3% improvement in GDP through efficiency savings. This compares with the consensus by economists that leaving the EU has had a 6% to 8% hit to GDP so far due to loss of trade, investment and productivity. They aren't either/or. You can reduce welfare and stay in your most important market.
There is no such consensus in terms of the economic cost of leaving the EU - I have seen numbers from a 2% improvement to a 10-12% drop,, and even if there were it wouldn't make any sense (not for the first time in a consensus of economists).
Any economic cost to us from leaving the EU must be primarily because of reduced exports to the EU, or secondarily because of reduced investment associated with such exports. Any other effects are almost certain to be trivial Exports to the EU accounted for 12% or so of our GDP when we left the EU. To reduce our GDP by 6-8% directly would have meant that we had lost one half to two thirds of those exports. In fact, our exports to the EU have grown slightly since we left. Even allowing for multiplier effects, the idea that our GDP has been reduced sufficiently by leaving the EU is ridiculous.
One could, of course, argue that our exports to the EU and therefore our GDP would have shot up had we remained in the EU, and that is sort of the implication of the NBER and LSE research, though they are wise enough not to state that explicitly. But that doesn't really make sense either, because exports to a block are largely determined by its GDP growth, and the EU's GDP growth over the past decade has been dismal. So it is inconceivable that our exports would have increased by enough to account for anything like a 6-8% drop in GDP.
So the more extreme estimates for the economic cost of leaving the EU have no basis in reality.
My own estimate, derived with colleagues, is about 0.5-1.5% of GDP, mostly from delayed investment due to the delay in leaving the EU. But then you need to offset other factors such as the end of our huge net contributions to the EU and our ability to determine our own regulations and trade agreements. So overall it probably hasn't made much difference, certainly compared to the astonishing incoherence and incompetence of the current government's economic policies.
The doctrines of the populist right do indeed contain much to condemn. Yet talking about them in apocalyptic terms is doomed to fail. For their own sake, and for the good of their countries, mainstream politicians and their supporters urgently need a different approach.
If demonisation is failing, what is the alternative? The answer starts with that impatience for change which the populist right harnesses so successfully—and which this newspaper shares.
For Britain, France and Germany, European economic integration is the most obvious source of growth. Yet the populists are set on a collision course with the European Union, which would lead to growth-destroying degradation of the single market. On other issues, populists latch onto discontent, but propose solutions that are foolish.
If mainstream politicians spend it shrilly demonising populists, they will doubtless make themselves feel better, but they will not help their countries. They would be wiser to subject governments-in-waiting to the democratic scrutiny they deserve.
The Economist is completely wrong - European economic integration might do a tiny bit to boost economic growth, but it be lost in the noise, especially for this country. It would inevitably focus on manufactured goods, which are not where we have a comparative advantage, because liberalising services is much more difficult, both practically and politically, and services are less likely to be traded. Trade with the EU is a relatively small part of our economy - exports to the EU are only about 13% of GDP. And liberalising trade with the EU comes with all sorts of constraints on sovereignty, which are exactly what made Brexit more than a fringe movement in the first place, and was perhaps the second biggest factor, after immigration, in the rise of UKIP/Reform.
The most obvious way to boost growth is to focus on competitiveness throughout the economy - deregulating product and labour markets, getting malingerers off welfare and reducing the size of the public sector. Just cutting size of the state by 3% of GDP, reversing the planned increases since Labour took power, should increase GDP by 2-3% over the long run, more if it's done in a pro-growth way, and much more than any realistic boost from closer ties with the EU, whatever the more absurd studies say.
By "completely wrong" I think you mean "doesn't agree with my priors".
Mind you, we are all guilty of that.
If trade within the EU is so awesome, how come their growth is not rocketing?
It might help, but it’s not a panacea for the U.K.
Fishing reckons a possible 3% improvement in GDP through efficiency savings. This compares with the consensus by economists that leaving the EU has had a 6% to 8% hit to GDP so far due to loss of trade, investment and productivity. They aren't either/or. You can reduce welfare and stay in your most important market.
There is no such consensus in terms of the economic cost of leaving the EU - I have seen numbers from a 2% improvement to a 10-12% drop,, and even if there were it wouldn't make any sense (not for the first time in a consensus of economists).
Any economic cost to us from leaving the EU must be primarily because of reduced exports to the EU, or secondarily because of reduced investment associated with such exports. Any other effects are almost certain to be trivial Exports to the EU accounted for 12% or so of our GDP when we left the EU. To reduce our GDP by 6-8% directly would have meant that we had lost one half to two thirds of those exports. In fact, our exports to the EU have grown slightly since we left. Even allowing for multiplier effects, the idea that our GDP has been reduced sufficiently by leaving the EU is ridiculous.
One could, of course, argue that our exports to the EU and therefore our GDP would have shot up had we remained in the EU, and that is sort of the implication of the NBER and LSE research, though they are wise enough not to state that explicitly. But that doesn't really make sense either, because exports to a block are largely determined by its GDP growth, and the EU's GDP growth over the past decade has been dismal. So it is inconceivable that our exports would have increased by enough to account for anything like a 6-8% drop in GDP.
So the more extreme estimates for the economic cost of leaving the EU have no basis in reality.
My own estimate, derived with colleagues, is about 0.5-1.5% of GDP, mostly from delayed investment due to the delay in leaving the EU. But then you need to offset other factors such as the end of our huge net contributions to the EU and our ability to determine our own regulations and trade agreements. So overall it probably hasn't made much difference, certainly compared to the astonishing incoherence and incompetence of the current government's economic policies.
My skepticism around the larger estimates is unscientific, in that it would seem to suggest we'd have done better than pretty much any of our near neighbours, which seems unlikely.
The doctrines of the populist right do indeed contain much to condemn. Yet talking about them in apocalyptic terms is doomed to fail. For their own sake, and for the good of their countries, mainstream politicians and their supporters urgently need a different approach.
If demonisation is failing, what is the alternative? The answer starts with that impatience for change which the populist right harnesses so successfully—and which this newspaper shares.
For Britain, France and Germany, European economic integration is the most obvious source of growth. Yet the populists are set on a collision course with the European Union, which would lead to growth-destroying degradation of the single market. On other issues, populists latch onto discontent, but propose solutions that are foolish.
If mainstream politicians spend it shrilly demonising populists, they will doubtless make themselves feel better, but they will not help their countries. They would be wiser to subject governments-in-waiting to the democratic scrutiny they deserve.
The Economist is completely wrong - European economic integration might do a tiny bit to boost economic growth, but it be lost in the noise, especially for this country. It would inevitably focus on manufactured goods, which are not where we have a comparative advantage, because liberalising services is much more difficult, both practically and politically, and services are less likely to be traded. Trade with the EU is a relatively small part of our economy - exports to the EU are only about 13% of GDP. And liberalising trade with the EU comes with all sorts of constraints on sovereignty, which are exactly what made Brexit more than a fringe movement in the first place, and was perhaps the second biggest factor, after immigration, in the rise of UKIP/Reform.
The most obvious way to boost growth is to focus on competitiveness throughout the economy - deregulating product and labour markets, getting malingerers off welfare and reducing the size of the public sector. Just cutting size of the state by 3% of GDP, reversing the planned increases since Labour took power, should increase GDP by 2-3% over the long run, more if it's done in a pro-growth way, and much more than any realistic boost from closer ties with the EU, whatever the more absurd studies say.
By "completely wrong" I think you mean "doesn't agree with my priors".
Mind you, we are all guilty of that.
If trade within the EU is so awesome, how come their growth is not rocketing?
It might help, but it’s not a panacea for the U.K.
Fishing reckons a possible 3% improvement in GDP through efficiency savings. This compares with the consensus by economists that leaving the EU has had a 6% to 8% hit to GDP so far due to loss of trade, investment and productivity. They aren't either/or. You can reduce welfare and stay in your most important market.
There is no such consensus in terms of the economic cost of leaving the EU - I have seen numbers from a 2% improvement to a 10-12% drop,, and even if there were it wouldn't make any sense (not for the first time in a consensus of economists).
Any economic cost to us from leaving the EU must be primarily because of reduced exports to the EU, or secondarily because of reduced investment associated with such exports. Any other effects are almost certain to be trivial Exports to the EU accounted for 12% or so of our GDP when we left the EU. To reduce our GDP by 6-8% directly would have meant that we had lost one half to two thirds of those exports. In fact, our exports to the EU have grown slightly since we left. Even allowing for multiplier effects, the idea that our GDP has been reduced sufficiently by leaving the EU is ridiculous.
One could, of course, argue that our exports to the EU and therefore our GDP would have shot up had we remained in the EU, and that is sort of the implication of the NBER and LSE research, though they are wise enough not to state that explicitly. But that doesn't really make sense either, because exports to a block are largely determined by its GDP growth, and the EU's GDP growth over the past decade has been dismal. So it is inconceivable that our exports would have increased by enough to account for anything like a 6-8% drop in GDP.
So the more extreme estimates for the economic cost of leaving the EU have no basis in reality.
My own estimate, derived with colleagues, is about 0.5-1.5% of GDP, mostly from delayed investment due to the delay in leaving the EU. But then you need to offset other factors such as the end of our huge net contributions to the EU and our ability to determine our own regulations and trade agreements. So overall it probably hasn't made much difference, certainly compared to the astonishing incoherence and incompetence of the current government's economic policies.
Ah, another sighting of schrodingers economy which is similtaneously booming because of Brexit and crippled by this government continuing the economic policies of the last government.
The doctrines of the populist right do indeed contain much to condemn. Yet talking about them in apocalyptic terms is doomed to fail. For their own sake, and for the good of their countries, mainstream politicians and their supporters urgently need a different approach.
If demonisation is failing, what is the alternative? The answer starts with that impatience for change which the populist right harnesses so successfully—and which this newspaper shares.
For Britain, France and Germany, European economic integration is the most obvious source of growth. Yet the populists are set on a collision course with the European Union, which would lead to growth-destroying degradation of the single market. On other issues, populists latch onto discontent, but propose solutions that are foolish.
If mainstream politicians spend it shrilly demonising populists, they will doubtless make themselves feel better, but they will not help their countries. They would be wiser to subject governments-in-waiting to the democratic scrutiny they deserve.
The Economist is completely wrong - European economic integration might do a tiny bit to boost economic growth, but it be lost in the noise, especially for this country. It would inevitably focus on manufactured goods, which are not where we have a comparative advantage, because liberalising services is much more difficult, both practically and politically, and services are less likely to be traded. Trade with the EU is a relatively small part of our economy - exports to the EU are only about 13% of GDP. And liberalising trade with the EU comes with all sorts of constraints on sovereignty, which are exactly what made Brexit more than a fringe movement in the first place, and was perhaps the second biggest factor, after immigration, in the rise of UKIP/Reform.
The most obvious way to boost growth is to focus on competitiveness throughout the economy - deregulating product and labour markets, getting malingerers off welfare and reducing the size of the public sector. Just cutting size of the state by 3% of GDP, reversing the planned increases since Labour took power, should increase GDP by 2-3% over the long run, more if it's done in a pro-growth way, and much more than any realistic boost from closer ties with the EU, whatever the more absurd studies say.
By "completely wrong" I think you mean "doesn't agree with my priors".
Mind you, we are all guilty of that.
If trade within the EU is so awesome, how come their growth is not rocketing?
It might help, but it’s not a panacea for the U.K.
Fishing reckons a possible 3% improvement in GDP through efficiency savings. This compares with the consensus by economists that leaving the EU has had a 6% to 8% hit to GDP so far due to loss of trade, investment and productivity. They aren't either/or. You can reduce welfare and stay in your most important market.
There is no such consensus in terms of the economic cost of leaving the EU - I have seen numbers from a 2% improvement to a 10-12% drop,, and even if there were it wouldn't make any sense (not for the first time in a consensus of economists).
Any economic cost to us from leaving the EU must be primarily because of reduced exports to the EU, or secondarily because of reduced investment associated with such exports. Any other effects are almost certain to be trivial Exports to the EU accounted for 12% or so of our GDP when we left the EU. To reduce our GDP by 6-8% directly would have meant that we had lost one half to two thirds of those exports. In fact, our exports to the EU have grown slightly since we left. Even allowing for multiplier effects, the idea that our GDP has been reduced sufficiently by leaving the EU is ridiculous.
One could, of course, argue that our exports to the EU and therefore our GDP would have shot up had we remained in the EU, and that is sort of the implication of the NBER and LSE research, though they are wise enough not to state that explicitly. But that doesn't really make sense either, because exports to a block are largely determined by its GDP growth, and the EU's GDP growth over the past decade has been dismal. So it is inconceivable that our exports would have increased by enough to account for anything like a 6-8% drop in GDP.
So the more extreme estimates for the economic cost of leaving the EU have no basis in reality.
My own estimate, derived with colleagues, is about 0.5-1.5% of GDP, mostly from delayed investment due to the delay in leaving the EU. But then you need to offset other factors such as the end of our huge net contributions to the EU and our ability to determine our own regulations and trade agreements. So overall it probably hasn't made much difference, certainly compared to the astonishing incoherence and incompetence of the current government's economic policies.
Ah, another sighting of schrodingers economy which is similtaneously booming because of Brexit and crippled by this government continuing the economic policies of the last government.
Something less hysterical than both options. Chris Giles in the FT:
Jonathan Karl @jonkarl · 1h Several years ago, I asked Rob Reiner how it was possible that he - the director of some of the greatest movies of our time - had never won an Oscar. I loved his response
Even prolific poster and non-stop sycophant @JDVance hasn't rallied to Donald Trump's defense regarding Rob Reiner.
Trump is like that racist, inappropriate, outspoken grandad you had when you were younger. Maybe he was even around during world war 2. You understood he was was a different generation and becoming senile, so you gave him more leeway than you otherwise would.
That person is now the President of the most powerful nation on earth.
The doctrines of the populist right do indeed contain much to condemn. Yet talking about them in apocalyptic terms is doomed to fail. For their own sake, and for the good of their countries, mainstream politicians and their supporters urgently need a different approach.
If demonisation is failing, what is the alternative? The answer starts with that impatience for change which the populist right harnesses so successfully—and which this newspaper shares.
For Britain, France and Germany, European economic integration is the most obvious source of growth. Yet the populists are set on a collision course with the European Union, which would lead to growth-destroying degradation of the single market. On other issues, populists latch onto discontent, but propose solutions that are foolish.
If mainstream politicians spend it shrilly demonising populists, they will doubtless make themselves feel better, but they will not help their countries. They would be wiser to subject governments-in-waiting to the democratic scrutiny they deserve.
The Economist is completely wrong - European economic integration might do a tiny bit to boost economic growth, but it be lost in the noise, especially for this country. It would inevitably focus on manufactured goods, which are not where we have a comparative advantage, because liberalising services is much more difficult, both practically and politically, and services are less likely to be traded. Trade with the EU is a relatively small part of our economy - exports to the EU are only about 13% of GDP. And liberalising trade with the EU comes with all sorts of constraints on sovereignty, which are exactly what made Brexit more than a fringe movement in the first place, and was perhaps the second biggest factor, after immigration, in the rise of UKIP/Reform.
The most obvious way to boost growth is to focus on competitiveness throughout the economy - deregulating product and labour markets, getting malingerers off welfare and reducing the size of the public sector. Just cutting size of the state by 3% of GDP, reversing the planned increases since Labour took power, should increase GDP by 2-3% over the long run, more if it's done in a pro-growth way, and much more than any realistic boost from closer ties with the EU, whatever the more absurd studies say.
By "completely wrong" I think you mean "doesn't agree with my priors".
Mind you, we are all guilty of that.
If trade within the EU is so awesome, how come their growth is not rocketing?
It might help, but it’s not a panacea for the U.K.
Fishing reckons a possible 3% improvement in GDP through efficiency savings. This compares with the consensus by economists that leaving the EU has had a 6% to 8% hit to GDP so far due to loss of trade, investment and productivity. They aren't either/or. You can reduce welfare and stay in your most important market.
There is no such consensus in terms of the economic cost of leaving the EU - I have seen numbers from a 2% improvement to a 10-12% drop,, and even if there were it wouldn't make any sense (not for the first time in a consensus of economists).
Any economic cost to us from leaving the EU must be primarily because of reduced exports to the EU, or secondarily because of reduced investment associated with such exports. Any other effects are almost certain to be trivial Exports to the EU accounted for 12% or so of our GDP when we left the EU. To reduce our GDP by 6-8% directly would have meant that we had lost one half to two thirds of those exports. In fact, our exports to the EU have grown slightly since we left. Even allowing for multiplier effects, the idea that our GDP has been reduced sufficiently by leaving the EU is ridiculous.
One could, of course, argue that our exports to the EU and therefore our GDP would have shot up had we remained in the EU, and that is sort of the implication of the NBER and LSE research, though they are wise enough not to state that explicitly. But that doesn't really make sense either, because exports to a block are largely determined by its GDP growth, and the EU's GDP growth over the past decade has been dismal. So it is inconceivable that our exports would have increased by enough to account for anything like a 6-8% drop in GDP.
So the more extreme estimates for the economic cost of leaving the EU have no basis in reality.
My own estimate, derived with colleagues, is about 0.5-1.5% of GDP, mostly from delayed investment due to the delay in leaving the EU. But then you need to offset other factors such as the end of our huge net contributions to the EU and our ability to determine our own regulations and trade agreements. So overall it probably hasn't made much difference, certainly compared to the astonishing incoherence and incompetence of the current government's economic policies.
Ah, another sighting of schrodingers economy which is similtaneously booming because of Brexit and crippled by this government continuing the economic policies of the last government.
That squares the circle of why we are growing faster than the EU, but not as fast as USA, CAN, AUS, NZ etc, yes.
We are the equivalent of running faster than the fat kid who never exercises, yes we are better off not being tied to them as a three legged race, but we could do better.
The BMA could have delayed the strike action to January . Refusing to do this will turn even more of the public against them .
I was fully supportive of their strikes before they received the pay award when Labour came into office now I’m totally disgusted with their actions.
I think the history of the BMA shows they really are not interested in what is best for healthcare, no matter how much they might pretend. I am reminded that in 2008 they voted against increasing the number of places for doctors at medical school because they didn't want an overproduction of doctors that might limit career opportunities. They have also recently voted against increasing online bookings and consultations for GPs.
The BMA could have delayed the strike action to January . Refusing to do this will turn even more of the public against them .
I was fully supportive of their strikes before they received the pay award when Labour came into office now I’m totally disgusted with their actions.
I think the history of the BMA shows they really are not interested in what is best for healthcare, no matter how much they might pretend. I am reminded that in 2008 they voted against increasing the number of places for doctors at medical school because they didn't want an overproduction of doctors that might limit career opportunities. They have also recently voted against increasing online bookings and consultations for GPs.
To be fair, they are a union and their only job is to defend the interests of their members, not those of the public. Like the train drivers’ union I both deplore their actions and wish my union was as effective at getting me sweeties.
The government is asking Apple and Google to prevent people from looking at nude pictures on their phones unless they submit to an age verification check:
It would seem Labour will not rest in their quest to age-gate the entire internet.
What could go wrong? In unrelated news:-
PornHub is being extorted by the ShinyHunters gang after a breach at analytics vendor Mixpanel exposed the search and watch history of its Premium members. The breach occurred on November 8, 2025, due to an SMS phishing attack. ShinyHunters claims to have stolen 94GB of data, including over 201 million records of sensitive user activity, although PornHub states that no financial information was compromised. https://securityish.com/security_brief/pornhub-faces-extortion-after-mixpanel-data-breach-exposes-user-activity/
I've just splashed out on my dinner. I'm making a monkfish and king prawn curry
I heat ghee, add cumin seeds and black mustard seeds. Once they start popping I add fresh sliced garlic and ginger. A couple of minutes and some stirring later I throw in chopped spring onions, then sliced red peppers
When the peppers are cooking I liberally add chilli powder (fresh chilli works well too, but I didn't want leftover chilli) and a good squeeze from a lime. Then add the monkfish and the prawns. Just before they're cooked I stir in a couple of tablespoons of crème fraiche and chopped chives and coriander, heat up again and serve with rice
I'm listening to Joy Of Cooking, an awesome band from the early 70s
Got a bit delayed by a long phone call, but now cooking dinner
You can save money by not bothering with the monkfish and prawns since whatever you use for texture will taste of the garlic, ginger, onions, peppers and chilli shown.
Grate potato and some onion. Put this mixture into a tea towel and squeeze out as much liquid as you can. Add some eggs and a bit of flour (doesn't really matter what sort). Form into pancakes and fry. (Hanukkah requires fried food.) Serve with soured cream.
The doctrines of the populist right do indeed contain much to condemn. Yet talking about them in apocalyptic terms is doomed to fail. For their own sake, and for the good of their countries, mainstream politicians and their supporters urgently need a different approach.
If demonisation is failing, what is the alternative? The answer starts with that impatience for change which the populist right harnesses so successfully—and which this newspaper shares.
For Britain, France and Germany, European economic integration is the most obvious source of growth. Yet the populists are set on a collision course with the European Union, which would lead to growth-destroying degradation of the single market. On other issues, populists latch onto discontent, but propose solutions that are foolish.
If mainstream politicians spend it shrilly demonising populists, they will doubtless make themselves feel better, but they will not help their countries. They would be wiser to subject governments-in-waiting to the democratic scrutiny they deserve.
The Economist is completely wrong - European economic integration might do a tiny bit to boost economic growth, but it be lost in the noise, especially for this country. It would inevitably focus on manufactured goods, which are not where we have a comparative advantage, because liberalising services is much more difficult, both practically and politically, and services are less likely to be traded. Trade with the EU is a relatively small part of our economy - exports to the EU are only about 13% of GDP. And liberalising trade with the EU comes with all sorts of constraints on sovereignty, which are exactly what made Brexit more than a fringe movement in the first place, and was perhaps the second biggest factor, after immigration, in the rise of UKIP/Reform.
The most obvious way to boost growth is to focus on competitiveness throughout the economy - deregulating product and labour markets, getting malingerers off welfare and reducing the size of the public sector. Just cutting size of the state by 3% of GDP, reversing the planned increases since Labour took power, should increase GDP by 2-3% over the long run, more if it's done in a pro-growth way, and much more than any realistic boost from closer ties with the EU, whatever the more absurd studies say.
By "completely wrong" I think you mean "doesn't agree with my priors".
Mind you, we are all guilty of that.
If trade within the EU is so awesome, how come their growth is not rocketing?
It might help, but it’s not a panacea for the U.K.
Fishing reckons a possible 3% improvement in GDP through efficiency savings. This compares with the consensus by economists that leaving the EU has had a 6% to 8% hit to GDP so far due to loss of trade, investment and productivity. They aren't either/or. You can reduce welfare and stay in your most important market.
There is no such consensus in terms of the economic cost of leaving the EU - I have seen numbers from a 2% improvement to a 10-12% drop,, and even if there were it wouldn't make any sense (not for the first time in a consensus of economists).
Any economic cost to us from leaving the EU must be primarily because of reduced exports to the EU, or secondarily because of reduced investment associated with such exports. Any other effects are almost certain to be trivial Exports to the EU accounted for 12% or so of our GDP when we left the EU. To reduce our GDP by 6-8% directly would have meant that we had lost one half to two thirds of those exports. In fact, our exports to the EU have grown slightly since we left. Even allowing for multiplier effects, the idea that our GDP has been reduced sufficiently by leaving the EU is ridiculous.
One could, of course, argue that our exports to the EU and therefore our GDP would have shot up had we remained in the EU, and that is sort of the implication of the NBER and LSE research, though they are wise enough not to state that explicitly. But that doesn't really make sense either, because exports to a block are largely determined by its GDP growth, and the EU's GDP growth over the past decade has been dismal. So it is inconceivable that our exports would have increased by enough to account for anything like a 6-8% drop in GDP.
So the more extreme estimates for the economic cost of leaving the EU have no basis in reality.
My own estimate, derived with colleagues, is about 0.5-1.5% of GDP, mostly from delayed investment due to the delay in leaving the EU. But then you need to offset other factors such as the end of our huge net contributions to the EU and our ability to determine our own regulations and trade agreements. So overall it probably hasn't made much difference, certainly compared to the astonishing incoherence and incompetence of the current government's economic policies.
Ah, another sighting of schrodingers economy which is similtaneously booming because of Brexit and crippled by this government continuing the economic policies of the last government.
If you are going to comment on posts, it does behoove you slightly to read them. Nowhere did I or anyone else say that the economy is booming because of Brexit. If you bother to read what I wrote, you'll see I said that it hasn't made much difference. Nor did anyone say that the current government is continuing the policies of the last government.
As usual, you are simply making up stuff you want other people to have said, regardless of what they did say. Just as you said the other day that Putin was cock-a-hoop over Brexit, without producing the slightest bit of evidence, and indeed the only quote of his I could find from the time showed that he was pretty indifferent.
Also, just for the record, your post doesn't address a single one of the points I actually made, as opposed to those strawmen you made up.
The doctrines of the populist right do indeed contain much to condemn. Yet talking about them in apocalyptic terms is doomed to fail. For their own sake, and for the good of their countries, mainstream politicians and their supporters urgently need a different approach.
If demonisation is failing, what is the alternative? The answer starts with that impatience for change which the populist right harnesses so successfully—and which this newspaper shares.
For Britain, France and Germany, European economic integration is the most obvious source of growth. Yet the populists are set on a collision course with the European Union, which would lead to growth-destroying degradation of the single market. On other issues, populists latch onto discontent, but propose solutions that are foolish.
If mainstream politicians spend it shrilly demonising populists, they will doubtless make themselves feel better, but they will not help their countries. They would be wiser to subject governments-in-waiting to the democratic scrutiny they deserve.
The Economist is completely wrong - European economic integration might do a tiny bit to boost economic growth, but it be lost in the noise, especially for this country. It would inevitably focus on manufactured goods, which are not where we have a comparative advantage, because liberalising services is much more difficult, both practically and politically, and services are less likely to be traded. Trade with the EU is a relatively small part of our economy - exports to the EU are only about 13% of GDP. And liberalising trade with the EU comes with all sorts of constraints on sovereignty, which are exactly what made Brexit more than a fringe movement in the first place, and was perhaps the second biggest factor, after immigration, in the rise of UKIP/Reform.
The most obvious way to boost growth is to focus on competitiveness throughout the economy - deregulating product and labour markets, getting malingerers off welfare and reducing the size of the public sector. Just cutting size of the state by 3% of GDP, reversing the planned increases since Labour took power, should increase GDP by 2-3% over the long run, more if it's done in a pro-growth way, and much more than any realistic boost from closer ties with the EU, whatever the more absurd studies say.
By "completely wrong" I think you mean "doesn't agree with my priors".
Mind you, we are all guilty of that.
If trade within the EU is so awesome, how come their growth is not rocketing?
It might help, but it’s not a panacea for the U.K.
Fishing reckons a possible 3% improvement in GDP through efficiency savings. This compares with the consensus by economists that leaving the EU has had a 6% to 8% hit to GDP so far due to loss of trade, investment and productivity. They aren't either/or. You can reduce welfare and stay in your most important market.
There is no such consensus in terms of the economic cost of leaving the EU - I have seen numbers from a 2% improvement to a 10-12% drop,, and even if there were it wouldn't make any sense (not for the first time in a consensus of economists).
Any economic cost to us from leaving the EU must be primarily because of reduced exports to the EU, or secondarily because of reduced investment associated with such exports. Any other effects are almost certain to be trivial Exports to the EU accounted for 12% or so of our GDP when we left the EU. To reduce our GDP by 6-8% directly would have meant that we had lost one half to two thirds of those exports. In fact, our exports to the EU have grown slightly since we left. Even allowing for multiplier effects, the idea that our GDP has been reduced sufficiently by leaving the EU is ridiculous.
One could, of course, argue that our exports to the EU and therefore our GDP would have shot up had we remained in the EU, and that is sort of the implication of the NBER and LSE research, though they are wise enough not to state that explicitly. But that doesn't really make sense either, because exports to a block are largely determined by its GDP growth, and the EU's GDP growth over the past decade has been dismal. So it is inconceivable that our exports would have increased by enough to account for anything like a 6-8% drop in GDP.
So the more extreme estimates for the economic cost of leaving the EU have no basis in reality.
My own estimate, derived with colleagues, is about 0.5-1.5% of GDP, mostly from delayed investment due to the delay in leaving the EU. But then you need to offset other factors such as the end of our huge net contributions to the EU and our ability to determine our own regulations and trade agreements. So overall it probably hasn't made much difference, certainly compared to the astonishing incoherence and incompetence of the current government's economic policies.
Ah, another sighting of schrodingers economy which is similtaneously booming because of Brexit and crippled by this government continuing the economic policies of the last government.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
Yeah, I saw those comments too, and they were utterly wretched.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
Yeah, I saw those comments too, and they were utterly wretched.
"Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
That post is wrong in so many ways…
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
That post is wrong in so many ways…
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
The BBC editing would pretty easily win a defamation suit in the UK, and probably meat the “actual malice” standard of defamation of a public figure in the US.
It was a pretty egregious example of a total failure to uphold journalistic standards, and has severely damaged the BBC’s reputation especially in the US. You simply can’t edit someone’s words to make them say exactly the opposite of what they actually said.
What he wants, and will probably get, is an apology and a donation to his library or ballroom.
Maybe he’s hoping he’ll get Cannon as judge . Although even then his case is nonsense . If people accessed the BBC Panorama by using a VPN that’s not the BBCs problem . They accessed the content illegally and even if somehow this went to court the BBC have Trumps behaviour over the last 8 years to say he already trashed his reputation . And of course I’m sure the GOP will be delighted to see this all highlighted in the run up to the mid-terms !
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
That post is wrong in so many ways…
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
The BBC editing would pretty easily win a defamation suit in the UK, and probably meat the “actual malice” standard of defamation of a public figure in the US.
It was a pretty egregious example of a total failure to uphold journalistic standards, and has severely damaged the BBC’s reputation especially in the US. You simply can’t edit someone’s words to make them say exactly the opposite of what they actually said.
What he wants, and will probably get, is an apology and a donation to his library or ballroom.
Yeah, trump never mis-represents anyone or defames them. The BBC should copy his example.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
That post is wrong in so many ways…
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
The BBC editing would pretty easily win a defamation suit in the UK, and probably meat the “actual malice” standard of defamation of a public figure in the US.
It was a pretty egregious example of a total failure to uphold journalistic standards, and has severely damaged the BBC’s reputation especially in the US. You simply can’t edit someone’s words to make them say exactly the opposite of what they actually said.
What he wants, and will probably get, is an apology and a donation to his library or ballroom.
I think that understates the malevolence of the man- what he wants is the end of the BBC in it's current form. This is also what his revolting acolytes such as Farage want too, of course. While I hold no brief for the BBC, an arrogant foreigner poking his nose into out national discussion should be given very short shrift indeed.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
Yeah, I saw those comments too, and they were utterly wretched.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
That post is wrong in so many ways…
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
The BBC editing would pretty easily win a defamation suit in the UK, and probably meat the “actual malice” standard of defamation of a public figure in the US.
It was a pretty egregious example of a total failure to uphold journalistic standards, and has severely damaged the BBC’s reputation especially in the US. You simply can’t edit someone’s words to make them say exactly the opposite of what they actually said.
What he wants, and will probably get, is an apology and a donation to his library or ballroom.
Giving he lies on a daily basis he should get told where to go
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
Yeah, I saw those comments too, and they were utterly wretched.
"Trump accused the broadcaster of defamation and of violating a trade practices law, according to court documents filed in Florida. "
He is claiming jurisdiction in Florida because some residents there "may" have viewed the program by using a VPN before it was taken down. I am not a Floridian lawyer but that is completely absurd, even by Trump's standards. I don't think that this case will ever get anywhere near the actual merits.
One problem is, although I am nearly 30 years out of date, that Floridian law way back then awarded only token amounts of expenses in the event that claims failed. If that is the case the BBC could find themselves seriously out of pocket dismissing this nonsense. But this is not a case where an economic settlement should be contemplated.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
Yeah, I saw those comments too, and they were utterly wretched.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
That post is wrong in so many ways…
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
The BBC editing would pretty easily win a defamation suit in the UK, and probably meat the “actual malice” standard of defamation of a public figure in the US.
It was a pretty egregious example of a total failure to uphold journalistic standards, and has severely damaged the BBC’s reputation especially in the US. You simply can’t edit someone’s words to make them say exactly the opposite of what they actually said.
What he wants, and will probably get, is an apology and a donation to his library or ballroom.
Please provide evidence for your assertion to it would “pretty easily” win a defamation case. It took actual words that he said - the error was not to include the blank screen that they usually do. So it was misleading but plenty of people have accused him of attempting to incite a riot.
And just to be clear: it wasn’t the “absolute opposite” of what he said.
In the UK you need to prove damage to reputation, in the US you need to prove it was malicious to boot.
It was poor journalism and an error. That deserves an apology but not monetary compensation.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
That post is wrong in so many ways…
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
The BBC editing would pretty easily win a defamation suit in the UK, and probably meat the “actual malice” standard of defamation of a public figure in the US.
It was a pretty egregious example of a total failure to uphold journalistic standards, and has severely damaged the BBC’s reputation especially in the US. You simply can’t edit someone’s words to make them say exactly the opposite of what they actually said.
What he wants, and will probably get, is an apology and a donation to his library or ballroom.
Please provide evidence for your assertion to it would “pretty easily” win a defamation case. It took actual words that he said - the error was not to include the blank screen that they usually do. So it was misleading but plenty of people have accused him of attempting to incite a riot.
And just to be clear: it wasn’t the “absolute opposite” of what he said.
In the UK you need to prove damage to reputation, in the US you need to prove it was malicious to boot.
It was poor journalism and an error. That deserves an apology but not monetary compensation.
What are the odds that there are more goals at Old Trafford this evening than runs scored by the England top three in their first innings in a few hours?
Your post had me looking and then wondering if the Test was already over. But its tonight.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
That post is wrong in so many ways…
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
The BBC editing would pretty easily win a defamation suit in the UK, and probably meat the “actual malice” standard of defamation of a public figure in the US.
It was a pretty egregious example of a total failure to uphold journalistic standards, and has severely damaged the BBC’s reputation especially in the US. You simply can’t edit someone’s words to make them say exactly the opposite of what they actually said.
What he wants, and will probably get, is an apology and a donation to his library or ballroom.
Please provide evidence for your assertion to it would “pretty easily” win a defamation case. It took actual words that he said - the error was not to include the blank screen that they usually do. So it was misleading but plenty of people have accused him of attempting to incite a riot.
And just to be clear: it wasn’t the “absolute opposite” of what he said.
In the UK you need to prove damage to reputation, in the US you need to prove it was malicious to boot.
It was poor journalism and an error. That deserves an apology but not monetary compensation.
The whole point was that people have accused him of the serious charge of inciting a riot, so twisting his words to make that accusation stronger is a serious dereliction of duty by the standards of anyone who wants to call themself a journalist.
A British court would likely find him to have been defamed and awarded him a token amount of money while leaving him to pick up his own costs. There’s plenty of precedents for that outcome in British defamation trials.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
That post is wrong in so many ways…
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
The BBC editing would pretty easily win a defamation suit in the UK, and probably meat the “actual malice” standard of defamation of a public figure in the US.
It was a pretty egregious example of a total failure to uphold journalistic standards, and has severely damaged the BBC’s reputation especially in the US. You simply can’t edit someone’s words to make them say exactly the opposite of what they actually said.
What he wants, and will probably get, is an apology and a donation to his library or ballroom.
Please provide evidence for your assertion to it would “pretty easily” win a defamation case. It took actual words that he said - the error was not to include the blank screen that they usually do. So it was misleading but plenty of people have accused him of attempting to incite a riot.
And just to be clear: it wasn’t the “absolute opposite” of what he said.
In the UK you need to prove damage to reputation, in the US you need to prove it was malicious to boot.
It was poor journalism and an error. That deserves an apology but not monetary compensation.
Sandpit's crush on Trump continues to blossom
Don’t worry, I’m happy to critisise his comments on Rob Reiner, as well as a fair amount of his comments regarding Ukraine.
The problem, as with so much commentary on Trump, is that people start from their conclusion and work backwards, which is really dangerous.
The BBC-think is “Well of course he incited a riot, so let’s just edit his speech to make that absolutely clear”. That’s not journalism, that’s propaganda.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
That post is wrong in so many ways…
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
The BBC editing would pretty easily win a defamation suit in the UK, and probably meat the “actual malice” standard of defamation of a public figure in the US.
It was a pretty egregious example of a total failure to uphold journalistic standards, and has severely damaged the BBC’s reputation especially in the US. You simply can’t edit someone’s words to make them say exactly the opposite of what they actually said.
What he wants, and will probably get, is an apology and a donation to his library or ballroom.
Please provide evidence for your assertion to it would “pretty easily” win a defamation case. It took actual words that he said - the error was not to include the blank screen that they usually do. So it was misleading but plenty of people have accused him of attempting to incite a riot.
And just to be clear: it wasn’t the “absolute opposite” of what he said.
In the UK you need to prove damage to reputation, in the US you need to prove it was malicious to boot.
It was poor journalism and an error. That deserves an apology but not monetary compensation.
Sandpit's crush on Trump continues to blossom
Don’t worry, I’m happy to critisise his comments on Rob Reiner, as well as a fair amount of his comments regarding Ukraine.
The problem, as with so much commentary on Trump, is that people start from their conclusion and work backwards, which is really dangerous.
The BBC-think is “Well of course he incited a riot, so let’s just edit his speech to make that absolutely clear”. That’s not journalism, that’s propaganda.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
That post is wrong in so many ways…
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
The BBC editing would pretty easily win a defamation suit in the UK, and probably meat the “actual malice” standard of defamation of a public figure in the US.
It was a pretty egregious example of a total failure to uphold journalistic standards, and has severely damaged the BBC’s reputation especially in the US. You simply can’t edit someone’s words to make them say exactly the opposite of what they actually said.
What he wants, and will probably get, is an apology and a donation to his library or ballroom.
Please provide evidence for your assertion to it would “pretty easily” win a defamation case. It took actual words that he said - the error was not to include the blank screen that they usually do. So it was misleading but plenty of people have accused him of attempting to incite a riot.
And just to be clear: it wasn’t the “absolute opposite” of what he said.
In the UK you need to prove damage to reputation, in the US you need to prove it was malicious to boot.
It was poor journalism and an error. That deserves an apology but not monetary compensation.
The whole point was that people have accused him of the serious charge of inciting a riot, so twisting his words to make that accusation stronger is a serious dereliction of duty by the standards of anyone who wants to call themself a journalist.
A British court would likely find him to have been defamed and awarded him a token amount of money while leaving him to pick up his own costs. There’s plenty of precedents for that outcome in British defamation trials.
He *did* incite a riot.
A judge would chuck his case out in three minutes. The simple fact is his own words from the same speech were used. There was no meaningful context missing, e.g. that he was parodying someone else talking about his actions.
There is no way that can be considered defamatory. Outside Prescott’s vivid imagination it isn’t even noticeably wrong.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
To be fair he does have a point about the defamation, although IIRC the programme in question was never broadcast in the US and he’s not going to get a billion-dollar settlement from a UK court.
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
That post is wrong in so many ways…
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
The BBC editing would pretty easily win a defamation suit in the UK, and probably meat the “actual malice” standard of defamation of a public figure in the US.
It was a pretty egregious example of a total failure to uphold journalistic standards, and has severely damaged the BBC’s reputation especially in the US. You simply can’t edit someone’s words to make them say exactly the opposite of what they actually said.
What he wants, and will probably get, is an apology and a donation to his library or ballroom.
Please provide evidence for your assertion to it would “pretty easily” win a defamation case. It took actual words that he said - the error was not to include the blank screen that they usually do. So it was misleading but plenty of people have accused him of attempting to incite a riot.
And just to be clear: it wasn’t the “absolute opposite” of what he said.
In the UK you need to prove damage to reputation, in the US you need to prove it was malicious to boot.
It was poor journalism and an error. That deserves an apology but not monetary compensation.
Sandpit's crush on Trump continues to blossom
Don’t worry, I’m happy to critisise his comments on Rob Reiner, as well as a fair amount of his comments regarding Ukraine.
The problem, as with so much commentary on Trump, is that people start from their conclusion and work backwards, which is really dangerous.
The BBC-think is “Well of course he incited a riot, so let’s just edit his speech to make that absolutely clear”. That’s not journalism, that’s propaganda.
Well, of course Trump incited a riot. The BDS* is strong with this one.
What are the odds that there are more goals at Old Trafford this evening than runs scored by the England top three in their first innings in a few hours?
Your post had me looking and then wondering if the Test was already over. But its tonight.
Yes. I was confused by the time zones and had the day wrong.
Comments
Q: A number of Republicans have denounced your statement on Rob Reiner. Do you stand by it?
TRUMP: Well, I wasn't a fan of his at all. He was a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2000669403927462012
Someone should ask Vance, who encouraged his followers to get anyone commented in a similar manner about Kirk's murder fired from their jobs, for his reaction.
I’m OK with shellfish, prawns etc., though.
Placki (or latkes) for Hanukkah
Grate potato and some onion. Put this mixture into a tea towel and squeeze out as much liquid as you can. Add some eggs and a bit of flour (doesn't really matter what sort). Form into pancakes and fry. (Hanukkah requires fried food.) Serve with soured cream.
It seems to be mostly ministers who have trouble following this rule.
Specifically, a Russian government run platform.
https://x.com/JAHeale/status/2000672075787260401
Such a shit reason for turning down a threesome.
I still regret it.
When was the last time a premiership game finished 4-4?
The last time a Premier League game finished 4-4 was in a match between Manchester United and AFC Bournemouth on December 15, 2025
"Minor Criminal: The Trial of the Man Who Murdered My Grandmother - Lord Daniel Finkelstein"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YFxodqIMi0
US puts £31bn tech ‘prosperity deal’ with Britain on ice
Pledge to invest billions in UK paused, with Washington citing lack of progress on trade barriers across pond
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/15/us-pauses-tech-prosperity-deal-britain-donald-trump-keir-starmer
Despite the score some signs United are improving
Numberphile video on maths of infinities
Sure, there are some amongst them who probably find him crass and offensive but think he is the best option for party and country regardless, but given how they act generally, and the lowering of tone all over the political divide, it is pretty clear that such remarks are exactly what a majority of his supporters want from him, even on such an occasion.
Wes Streeting: this* is the worst thing the BMA have done since trying to stop the formation of the nhs
Newsnight.
* refuse to postpone strike until Jan
More Nixon going Loco than Nixon gling to China.
Any economic cost to us from leaving the EU must be primarily because of reduced exports to the EU, or secondarily because of reduced investment associated with such exports. Any other effects are almost certain to be trivial Exports to the EU accounted for 12% or so of our GDP when we left the EU. To reduce our GDP by 6-8% directly would have meant that we had lost one half to two thirds of those exports. In fact, our exports to the EU have grown slightly since we left. Even allowing for multiplier effects, the idea that our GDP has been reduced sufficiently by leaving the EU is ridiculous.
One could, of course, argue that our exports to the EU and therefore our GDP would have shot up had we remained in the EU, and that is sort of the implication of the NBER and LSE research, though they are wise enough not to state that explicitly. But that doesn't really make sense either, because exports to a block are largely determined by its GDP growth, and the EU's GDP growth over the past decade has been dismal. So it is inconceivable that our exports would have increased by enough to account for anything like a 6-8% drop in GDP.
So the more extreme estimates for the economic cost of leaving the EU have no basis in reality.
My own estimate, derived with colleagues, is about 0.5-1.5% of GDP, mostly from delayed investment due to the delay in leaving the EU. But then you need to offset other factors such as the end of our huge net contributions to the EU and our ability to determine our own regulations and trade agreements. So overall it probably hasn't made much difference, certainly compared to the astonishing incoherence and incompetence of the current government's economic policies.
https://www.ft.com/content/5afff79e-0af7-4f96-b69f-c603cd083a50
https://archive.is/HWym4
I was fully supportive of their strikes before they received the pay award when Labour came into office now I’m totally disgusted with their actions.
@jonkarl
·
1h
Several years ago, I asked Rob Reiner how it was possible that he - the director of some of the greatest movies of our time - had never won an Oscar. I loved his response
https://x.com/jonkarl/status/2000682894642102284
"You gotta like what you are doing because that is the time you are spending on the planet"
LBC
@LBC
'You're going to see a lot of unemployed congressmen after the midterms.'
@ambJohnBolton thinks Donald Trump's attack on director Rob Reiner, who died by stabbing, shows that the President's reign is ending.
https://x.com/LBC/status/2000678194119135600
http://www.david-tennant.co.uk/2020/02/david-tennant-stars-as-caligula-in-bbc.html
"David Tennant features in a new BBC archive release which collects nine full-cast audio dramas from the BBC Radio 4 series Caesar!".
Tennant does do a good turn as Caligula.
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
41m
Even prolific poster and non-stop sycophant
@JDVance
hasn't rallied to Donald Trump's defense regarding Rob Reiner.
That person is now the President of the most powerful nation on earth.
https://x.com/shitbritishpics/status/2000491022741278884?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
We are the equivalent of running faster than the fat kid who never exercises, yes we are better off not being tied to them as a three legged race, but we could do better.
I was trying to be sophisticated.
PornHub is being extorted by the ShinyHunters gang after a breach at analytics vendor Mixpanel exposed the search and watch history of its Premium members. The breach occurred on November 8, 2025, due to an SMS phishing attack. ShinyHunters claims to have stolen 94GB of data, including over 201 million records of sensitive user activity, although PornHub states that no financial information was compromised.
https://securityish.com/security_brief/pornhub-faces-extortion-after-mixpanel-data-breach-exposes-user-activity/
As usual, you are simply making up stuff you want other people to have said, regardless of what they did say. Just as you said the other day that Putin was cock-a-hoop over Brexit, without producing the slightest bit of evidence, and indeed the only quote of his I could find from the time showed that he was pretty indifferent.
Also, just for the record, your post doesn't address a single one of the points I actually made, as opposed to those strawmen you made up.
I see Trump remains less than delighted with the BBC.
"Epstein's UK flights had alleged British abuse victims on board, BBC finds!"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4709kylkxo
More likely he wants to waste BBC management time and make them hire a bunch of lawyers to defend themselves or apologise in court.
His comments on the BBC somewhat overshadowed by those on Rob Reiner, which were harsh even by his low standards of speaking about opponents. One should not speak ill of the dead, especially not given the circumstances, as many of his supporters and GOP politicians have made clear.
He appears to have filed in Florida:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvd81470v1o
"Trump accused the broadcaster of defamation and of violating a trade practices law, according to court documents filed in Florida. "
"Every time I go to pull a lever, there are a whole bunch of regulations, consultations, arms-length bodies that mean the action from pulling the lever to delivery is longer than I think it ought to be"
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2000594550599864781
If only he was the PM with a large majority, who might be in a position to actually do something about the regulatory and bureaucratic overload?
He doesn’t have a point on defamation - the editing was poor and arguably misleading but it didn’t come up with anything that hundreds of others haven’t accused him of.
He’s out of time in the UK and the US courts (as you note) don’t have standing.
It’s just simply an attempted shakedown and fully credit to the BBC for standing up to him
https://bsky.app/profile/zamafir.bsky.social/post/3ma2ixty2bk2b
It was a pretty egregious example of a total failure to uphold journalistic standards, and has severely damaged the BBC’s reputation especially in the US. You simply can’t edit someone’s words to make them say exactly the opposite of what they actually said.
What he wants, and will probably get, is an apology and a donation to his library or ballroom.
One problem is, although I am nearly 30 years out of date, that Floridian law way back then awarded only token amounts of expenses in the event that claims failed. If that is the case the BBC could find themselves seriously out of pocket dismissing this nonsense. But this is not a case where an economic settlement should be contemplated.
And just to be clear: it wasn’t the “absolute opposite” of what he said.
In the UK you need to prove damage to reputation, in the US you need to prove it was malicious to boot.
It was poor journalism and an error. That deserves an apology but not monetary compensation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/designating-fentanyl-as-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction/
NEW THREAD
A British court would likely find him to have been defamed and awarded him a token amount of money while leaving him to pick up his own costs. There’s plenty of precedents for that outcome in British defamation trials.
The problem, as with so much commentary on Trump, is that people start from their conclusion and work backwards, which is really dangerous.
The BBC-think is “Well of course he incited a riot, so let’s just edit his speech to make that absolutely clear”. That’s not journalism, that’s propaganda.
A judge would chuck his case out in three minutes. The simple fact is his own words from the same speech were used. There was no meaningful context missing, e.g. that he was parodying someone else talking about his actions.
There is no way that can be considered defamatory. Outside Prescott’s vivid imagination it isn’t even noticeably wrong.
* BBC Derangement Syndrome.