Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
I was assuming that the engine was still on when they discovered the issue with the switch.
Mr. Pete, it's all very well posting these reams of text laced with subtlety and nuance but it makes it very difficult for us to discern your true feelings when you insist on sitting on the fence like this.
Good header, but it seriously falls down with this bit:
So, what if Farage or Polanski actually wins? I would expect 3 possible outcomes based on how the Trump presidency has played out:..
There is a fourth possible (and I would argue more likely) outcome. The "outsider" (is it really accurate to call Farage that now ?) makes an even greater hash of things than the last half dozen administrations.
That appears to be what happened with the most recent outsider win (Brexit), judging by opinion polling on how it turned out. Is there any reason to believe that either Farage or Polanski would be better prepared for government than was Starmer ?
Stephen Bush in the FT daily round-up email thing:
Starmer is now at the same sort of point that Theresa May was in the summer of 2017, that Boris Johnson was after Partygate, and that Liz Truss was after the market reaction to her “mini” Budget. Theresa May lasted two years. Boris Johnson a little under a year, Liz Truss 29 days.
2027 as his exit year is available at 8.2:1 on Betfair. 2026 is now the shortest I've seen it at 1.39.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
There is an awful lot going on regarding Air India and Boeing with both trying to pin the blame on the other.
Everytime I look it makes me go - best pick airlines and routes the don’t use Boeing planes
Flew Air India from Bangkok to Delhi once. A passenger arrived ..... on the plane ....., just in time for take-off with a massive bag which he insisted on keeping in the cabin. The cabin staff let him do so, although it blocked the aisle. Made a mental note never to use them again.
You can always find some waste if you look hard enough, but the easy cuts happened years ago - local government is not an area central government needed to worry about public outcry for forcing to trim back spending.
On the Greens and the markets I listened to the podcast recommended on here with Polanski talking to a left-wing economist. It was interesting that they both recognised the mistake Truss has made - of failing to retain the confidence of the markets - and accepted the necessity of retaining that confidence, rather than seeing the market as something that could be faced down or bypassed.
I think perceptions of the Greens are out of kilter with reality to an extent.
Then what differentiates them from Labour? If they really believe in retaining the confidence of the markets then they'll be exactly the same, an economically orthodox party with slightly leftist rhetoric. What choices could they have made differently over the past year and still retained the confidence of the markets? Apologies for the somewhat rhetorical question.
I think there are lots of things that a government can do that don't involve directly spending money.
Secondly, in the podcast they make the point that the markets aren't concerned with the detail of tax and spend policies, but with the ability of the government to pay debt interest - the implication being that if they want to increase spending they would need to increase taxation rather than borrowing.
“ lots of things that a government can do that don't involve directly spending money.”
Which is a big part of how we got here - government uses the law to mandate that other people do things at *their* expense. Free public spending sounds awesome, doesn’t it?
SEND….
I was thinking more of things like abolishing leasehold, or regulating car finance - things that would reduce the extent to which people are scammed by companies.
You could even consider changing the law to reduce the planning burden, or at least change it so that the desired outcome is achieved with less overhead.
There have been loads of ideas talked about on here over the years.
NEW: Labour MP Brian Leishman joins the calls for Morgan McSweeney to go.
"You can't just look at this in isolation. When we look at the historic missteps and misjudgments we've made, Morgan McSweeney is at the heart of that and it's time he was removed from power."
To get back to insiders, apols if I missed it but has there been anny comment on Bezos laying off a huge chunk of the Washington Post's journalists? That cnut arsing about with penis shaped rockets and multi $m weddings in Venice while turning a serious newspaper into Völkischer Beobachter epitomises the state we're in.
I'm not generally someone who does protests or boycotts, but I am so revolted by Bezos' recent antics that I have actually resolved to stop using Amazon. I have been spending £3k-6k a year with them for at least 20 years. No more. No Prime, no Audible, no physical goods through the post. It's going to cost me maybe 5% extra on that spend, plus some extra time finding new sources for some stuff, but I'm so p****d off at this new kakistocracy.
Amazon are often not the cheapest places to buy things these days. The plague of dodgy Chinese sellers (both brands you never heard of playing the algorithm to get listed high up and as FBA sellers) is also a big negative.
Yeah, that was already starting to turn me off to be fair. Even if I knew exactly what I wanted so eg searched for "Anker 60w usb-c charger" the site would bloat the results with cheap crappy alternatives I hadn't asked for and that had no business being weighted so heavily in the results.
And their habit of “binning” products from different vendors means that the fakes are in the same pile as the real items.
So you could buy from the manufacturers store on Amazon. And get a fake.
Yup. And things like Anker chargers are just the kind of thing that get faked.
I definitely wouldn't buy anything of that nature from there - it is asking for trouble.
Cheap chargers are quite the hazard.
Never buy climbing gear online. Never ever. Some horrifying stories about quickdraws in particular.
Absolutely. Although back in the dim and distant past I might have used the Field and Trek catalogue for a few items when online wasn't a thing.
Tiso's Perth do well out of me if I'm heading north without something. Good location, shame about the glass factory.
Taz, Michael Lonsdale was excellent. He played the detective in the original film of "Day of the Jackal" and the French ambassador in "The Remains of the Day." He also popped up in a couple of episode of the French version of Maigret with Bruno Cremer in the title role. ....
I watched the BBC Smileys People on holiday, an episode a day, very good it is too. Michael Lonsdale was excellent. He was also in the best Bond movie so two excellent strings to his bow,
I read somewhere that Alan Rickman has a small part in it
You’re right, he did, had to google it. A walk on part, Mr Brownlow (not to be confused with the chap from The Bill).
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
Attended a Zoom lecture a couple of weeks ago on the subject of the Potomac crash and in the discussion someone mentioned the Air India crash. the speaker, who we were assured was an airline safety expert, and in any event an experienced military and civil airlines pilot was of the opinion that someone was playing silly whatsis with the switches somewhere and when the final report came out Air India could be in serious trouble.
Both switches failing at the same time in the same way (as they would have to cause the Ahemedabad crash) just isn't credible. It'll be human error or malevolence like almost all aircraft mishaps.
To get back to insiders, apols if I missed it but has there been anny comment on Bezos laying off a huge chunk of the Washington Post's journalists? That cnut arsing about with penis shaped rockets and multi $m weddings in Venice while turning a serious newspaper into Völkischer Beobachter epitomises the state we're in.
I'm not generally someone who does protests or boycotts, but I am so revolted by Bezos' recent antics that I have actually resolved to stop using Amazon. I have been spending £3k-6k a year with them for at least 20 years. No more. No Prime, no Audible, no physical goods through the post. It's going to cost me maybe 5% extra on that spend, plus some extra time finding new sources for some stuff, but I'm so p****d off at this new kakistocracy.
Amazon are often not the cheapest places to buy things these days. The plague of dodgy Chinese sellers (both brands you never heard of playing the algorithm to get listed high up and as FBA sellers) is also a big negative.
Yeah, that was already starting to turn me off to be fair. Even if I knew exactly what I wanted so eg searched for "Anker 60w usb-c charger" the site would bloat the results with cheap crappy alternatives I hadn't asked for and that had no business being weighted so heavily in the results.
And their habit of “binning” products from different vendors means that the fakes are in the same pile as the real items.
So you could buy from the manufacturers store on Amazon. And get a fake.
I wonder how that is even legal. I know trading standards aren't in a position to take Amazon on, but the buyer is not being supplied with the product they've paid for. It should be the simplest case to prosecute.
They say they only do it where the SKU (barcode) is the same. The problem is that genuine and fake goods end up in the same bin, because they have the same barcode, even if they’re from different sellers.
To get back to insiders, apols if I missed it but has there been anny comment on Bezos laying off a huge chunk of the Washington Post's journalists? That cnut arsing about with penis shaped rockets and multi $m weddings in Venice while turning a serious newspaper into Völkischer Beobachter epitomises the state we're in.
I'm not generally someone who does protests or boycotts, but I am so revolted by Bezos' recent antics that I have actually resolved to stop using Amazon. I have been spending £3k-6k a year with them for at least 20 years. No more. No Prime, no Audible, no physical goods through the post. It's going to cost me maybe 5% extra on that spend, plus some extra time finding new sources for some stuff, but I'm so p****d off at this new kakistocracy.
Amazon are often not the cheapest places to buy things these days. The plague of dodgy Chinese sellers (both brands you never heard of playing the algorithm to get listed high up and as FBA sellers) is also a big negative.
Yeah, that was already starting to turn me off to be fair. Even if I knew exactly what I wanted so eg searched for "Anker 60w usb-c charger" the site would bloat the results with cheap crappy alternatives I hadn't asked for and that had no business being weighted so heavily in the results.
And their habit of “binning” products from different vendors means that the fakes are in the same pile as the real items.
So you could buy from the manufacturers store on Amazon. And get a fake.
Yup. And things like Anker chargers are just the kind of thing that get faked.
I definitely wouldn't buy anything of that nature from there - it is asking for trouble.
Cheap chargers are quite the hazard.
Never buy climbing gear online. Never ever. Some horrifying stories about quickdraws in particular.
Don’t buy anything that will kill you if it fails or is faulty, from any source you don’t implicitly trust.
It’s quite amazing that it needs to be said. There’s a lot of fake Chinese safety gear out there, that’s not as strong as it says it is.
feels like Labour is stuck in the seventh circle of leadership contest hell, ie pingponging endlessly between 'he should go!' and 'but not be replaced by any of the people available in this actual life'
feels like Labour is stuck in the seventh circle of leadership contest hell, ie pingponging endlessly between 'he should go!' and 'but not be replaced by any of the people available in this actual life'
Talking of actors her Dad was the guy who played Don Brennan in Corrie (as well as two excellent Dr Who roles)
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
If there’s any truth in that, surely Starmer is in big trouble? The whole point of Mandy getting the job was because he was someone who could get along with the crazy US administration. Rubio would have been his main contact in Washington, so if he warned against the appointment, why would the PM go through with it?
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
Attended a Zoom lecture a couple of weeks ago on the subject of the Potomac crash and in the discussion someone mentioned the Air India crash. the speaker, who we were assured was an airline safety expert, and in any event an experienced military and civil airlines pilot was of the opinion that someone was playing silly whatsis with the switches somewhere and when the final report came out Air India could be in serious trouble.
Both switches failing at the same time in the same way (as they would have to cause the Ahemedabad crash) just isn't credible. It'll be human error or malevolence like almost all aircraft mishaps.
"The sources quoted by PTI revealed that upon landing in Bengaluru on Monday morning, the pilot recorded the defect in the log book, pointing out that the fuel switch slipped from 'run' to 'cut off'. The fuel switch was reportedly not getting locked in its position. The 'run' and 'cut off' options are used to start or shut down engines respectively."
I had a boss who once had to tell an entire small company that we were out of cash and the whole thing was going under unless they could find a buyout. His tone and mannerism was very much like this speech.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
I was assuming that the engine was still on when they discovered the issue with the switch.
They say that they had an issue with the switch on the ground at Heathrow, when they went to switch on the engine before the flight. They say the switch didn’t engage properly in the ‘run’ position. It’s a switch that controls the fuel line to the engine.
The previous accident was almost certainly a pilot suicide, but both the airline and Indian authorities are really struggling culturally with that explanation for 241 deaths.
To get back to insiders, apols if I missed it but has there been anny comment on Bezos laying off a huge chunk of the Washington Post's journalists? That cnut arsing about with penis shaped rockets and multi $m weddings in Venice while turning a serious newspaper into Völkischer Beobachter epitomises the state we're in.
I'm not generally someone who does protests or boycotts, but I am so revolted by Bezos' recent antics that I have actually resolved to stop using Amazon. I have been spending £3k-6k a year with them for at least 20 years. No more. No Prime, no Audible, no physical goods through the post. It's going to cost me maybe 5% extra on that spend, plus some extra time finding new sources for some stuff, but I'm so p****d off at this new kakistocracy.
Amazon are often not the cheapest places to buy things these days. The plague of dodgy Chinese sellers (both brands you never heard of playing the algorithm to get listed high up and as FBA sellers) is also a big negative.
Yeah, that was already starting to turn me off to be fair. Even if I knew exactly what I wanted so eg searched for "Anker 60w usb-c charger" the site would bloat the results with cheap crappy alternatives I hadn't asked for and that had no business being weighted so heavily in the results.
And their habit of “binning” products from different vendors means that the fakes are in the same pile as the real items.
So you could buy from the manufacturers store on Amazon. And get a fake.
Yup. And things like Anker chargers are just the kind of thing that get faked.
I definitely wouldn't buy anything of that nature from there - it is asking for trouble.
Cheap chargers are quite the hazard.
Never buy climbing gear online. Never ever. Some horrifying stories about quickdraws in particular.
Don’t buy anything that will kill you if it fails or is faulty, from any source you don’t implicitly trust.
It’s quite amazing that it needs to be said. There’s a lot of fake Chinese safety gear out there, that’s not as strong as it says it is.
I’ll always pay what I need for charger cables or electronics. For that reason.
To get back to insiders, apols if I missed it but has there been anny comment on Bezos laying off a huge chunk of the Washington Post's journalists? That cnut arsing about with penis shaped rockets and multi $m weddings in Venice while turning a serious newspaper into Völkischer Beobachter epitomises the state we're in.
I'm not generally someone who does protests or boycotts, but I am so revolted by Bezos' recent antics that I have actually resolved to stop using Amazon. I have been spending £3k-6k a year with them for at least 20 years. No more. No Prime, no Audible, no physical goods through the post. It's going to cost me maybe 5% extra on that spend, plus some extra time finding new sources for some stuff, but I'm so p****d off at this new kakistocracy.
Amazon are often not the cheapest places to buy things these days. The plague of dodgy Chinese sellers (both brands you never heard of playing the algorithm to get listed high up and as FBA sellers) is also a big negative.
Yeah, that was already starting to turn me off to be fair. Even if I knew exactly what I wanted so eg searched for "Anker 60w usb-c charger" the site would bloat the results with cheap crappy alternatives I hadn't asked for and that had no business being weighted so heavily in the results.
And their habit of “binning” products from different vendors means that the fakes are in the same pile as the real items.
So you could buy from the manufacturers store on Amazon. And get a fake.
I wonder how that is even legal. I know trading standards aren't in a position to take Amazon on, but the buyer is not being supplied with the product they've paid for. It should be the simplest case to prosecute.
They say they only do it where the SKU (barcode) is the same. The problem is that genuine and fake goods end up in the same bin, because they have the same barcode, even if they’re from different sellers.
To get back to insiders, apols if I missed it but has there been anny comment on Bezos laying off a huge chunk of the Washington Post's journalists? That cnut arsing about with penis shaped rockets and multi $m weddings in Venice while turning a serious newspaper into Völkischer Beobachter epitomises the state we're in.
I'm not generally someone who does protests or boycotts, but I am so revolted by Bezos' recent antics that I have actually resolved to stop using Amazon. I have been spending £3k-6k a year with them for at least 20 years. No more. No Prime, no Audible, no physical goods through the post. It's going to cost me maybe 5% extra on that spend, plus some extra time finding new sources for some stuff, but I'm so p****d off at this new kakistocracy.
Amazon are often not the cheapest places to buy things these days. The plague of dodgy Chinese sellers (both brands you never heard of playing the algorithm to get listed high up and as FBA sellers) is also a big negative.
Yeah, that was already starting to turn me off to be fair. Even if I knew exactly what I wanted so eg searched for "Anker 60w usb-c charger" the site would bloat the results with cheap crappy alternatives I hadn't asked for and that had no business being weighted so heavily in the results.
And their habit of “binning” products from different vendors means that the fakes are in the same pile as the real items.
So you could buy from the manufacturers store on Amazon. And get a fake.
Yup. And things like Anker chargers are just the kind of thing that get faked.
I definitely wouldn't buy anything of that nature from there - it is asking for trouble.
Cheap chargers are quite the hazard.
Never buy climbing gear online. Never ever. Some horrifying stories about quickdraws in particular.
Don’t buy anything that will kill you if it fails or is faulty, from any source you don’t implicitly trust.
It’s quite amazing that it needs to be said. There’s a lot of fake Chinese safety gear out there, that’s not as strong as it says it is.
Even if it's from a reputable firm (e.g. Tiso as above), it's worth doing it in person because you'll have someone like me provide a final inspection before handing it over (you should insist on this, but also accept that 20-year old sales assistants know what they are doing). You can mess up putting a quickdraw together, for example, and other gear can get damaged in transit. Especially important if you're a guide or similar.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
NImrods routinely did it but those crews would have welcomed a crash to get away from the Honkers.
The things I’m taking from this press conference - they surely can’t continue with Starmer. But he’s not going to fall on his sword, this will be bloody.
To get back to insiders, apols if I missed it but has there been anny comment on Bezos laying off a huge chunk of the Washington Post's journalists? That cnut arsing about with penis shaped rockets and multi $m weddings in Venice while turning a serious newspaper into Völkischer Beobachter epitomises the state we're in.
I'm not generally someone who does protests or boycotts, but I am so revolted by Bezos' recent antics that I have actually resolved to stop using Amazon. I have been spending £3k-6k a year with them for at least 20 years. No more. No Prime, no Audible, no physical goods through the post. It's going to cost me maybe 5% extra on that spend, plus some extra time finding new sources for some stuff, but I'm so p****d off at this new kakistocracy.
Amazon are often not the cheapest places to buy things these days. The plague of dodgy Chinese sellers (both brands you never heard of playing the algorithm to get listed high up and as FBA sellers) is also a big negative.
Yeah, that was already starting to turn me off to be fair. Even if I knew exactly what I wanted so eg searched for "Anker 60w usb-c charger" the site would bloat the results with cheap crappy alternatives I hadn't asked for and that had no business being weighted so heavily in the results.
And their habit of “binning” products from different vendors means that the fakes are in the same pile as the real items.
So you could buy from the manufacturers store on Amazon. And get a fake.
Yup. And things like Anker chargers are just the kind of thing that get faked.
I definitely wouldn't buy anything of that nature from there - it is asking for trouble.
Cheap chargers are quite the hazard.
Never buy climbing gear online. Never ever. Some horrifying stories about quickdraws in particular.
Don’t buy anything that will kill you if it fails or is faulty, from any source you don’t implicitly trust.
It’s quite amazing that it needs to be said. There’s a lot of fake Chinese safety gear out there, that’s not as strong as it says it is.
Making me think of tourniquets: was looking last year at helping source these for a charity in Ukraine, and everyone had a horror story about cheap Chinese knockoffs snapping at the moment of truth.
Dan Thomas, former Barnet Council leader is Reform Wales new leader
Hes an ex Tory surprisingly
Sounds like another member of the metropolitan elite.
He quit Barnet council (as a Reformer) in December to move to Wales Plaid will attack his lack of Welshness fairly ruthlessly id imagine
It's a touch murky.
Moved to Wales in 2024 to "bring up my family in the countryside", retaining his position as a Councillor in Barnet.
Then on December 31st 2025 resigned from the Council, aiui too late for a byelection to be held so the residents are unrepresented until May, and - coincidentally - in time to stand for the Reform Leader in Wales position.
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
If there’s any truth in that, surely Starmer is in big trouble? The whole point of Mandy getting the job was because he was someone who could get along with the crazy US administration. Rubio would have been his main contact in Washington, so if he warned against the appointment, why would the PM go through with it?
Yes, I wondered yesterday whether the story about appointing Mandelson as a sleazeball to handle a sleazeball might not be true. The implications being they he was appointed because Starmer is actually part of a web of mutual obligation where he owed Mandelson a favour in return for a favour.
So then it's less a question of Starmer's judgement in appointing a known sleazeball, where he's separate and an external observer, but where he's one of the clique.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
Attended a Zoom lecture a couple of weeks ago on the subject of the Potomac crash and in the discussion someone mentioned the Air India crash. the speaker, who we were assured was an airline safety expert, and in any event an experienced military and civil airlines pilot was of the opinion that someone was playing silly whatsis with the switches somewhere and when the final report came out Air India could be in serious trouble.
Both switches failing at the same time in the same way (as they would have to cause the Ahemedabad crash) just isn't credible. It'll be human error or malevolence like almost all aircraft mishaps.
Both switches from the Air India crash were recovered and tested. They were in working order - they are pretty robust things.
In addition, what happened was this - the switches were apparently moved about a second apart. According to a sensing circuit built in to them. In the exact same sequence, the respective engines started to shut down - registered by other sensors in dependent systems.
When the pilot flying the plane asked his colleague if he had shut the switches (on the voice recorder) and was told no…
The sensors detected the switches being flipped back to on (with a small time difference, again), and the engines restarted (according to their sensor systems). But too late to save the aircraft.
No one has been able to construct a plausible scenario apart from one of the pilots operating the switches.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
I was assuming that the engine was still on when they discovered the issue with the switch.
They say that they had an issue with the switch on the ground at Heathrow, when they went to switch on the engine before the flight. They say the switch didn’t engage properly in the ‘run’ position. It’s a switch that controls the fuel line to the engine.
The previous accident was almost certainly a pilot suicide, but both the airline and Indian authorities are really struggling culturally with that explanation for 241 deaths.
Mr. Pete, it's all very well posting these reams of text laced with subtlety and nuance but it makes it very difficult for us to discern your true feelings when you insist on sitting on the fence like this.
Morris. I am of the opinion that Starmer over the six years he has been Labour leader has been on the whole given an unfair raw deal by the media and PB posters. But today he has admitted to an error so egregious that resignation is the only option.
It doesn't really matter that Epstein lied. The decision to make him US Ambassador was Starmer's, cheered on by Gove and Dan Hodges. But Gove and Dan Hodges aren't Prime Minister. He pulled the trigger and the only way forward for his party and the nation is to fall on his sword. Starmer's position is untenable. Everyone now seems to know this except Starmer. Where does the buck stop?
Taz, Michael Lonsdale was excellent. He played the detective in the original film of "Day of the Jackal" and the French ambassador in "The Remains of the Day." He also popped up in a couple of episode of the French version of Maigret with Bruno Cremer in the title role. ....
And who can forget his Drax in Moonraker.
""James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season."
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
I was assuming that the engine was still on when they discovered the issue with the switch.
They say that they had an issue with the switch on the ground at Heathrow, when they went to switch on the engine before the flight. They say the switch didn’t engage properly in the ‘run’ position. It’s a switch that controls the fuel line to the engine.
The previous accident was almost certainly a pilot suicide, but both the airline and Indian authorities are really struggling culturally with that explanation for 241 deaths.
I should think the insurance company is having several varieties of kittens at the thought.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
I was assuming that the engine was still on when they discovered the issue with the switch.
They say that they had an issue with the switch on the ground at Heathrow, when they went to switch on the engine before the flight. They say the switch didn’t engage properly in the ‘run’ position. It’s a switch that controls the fuel line to the engine.
The previous accident was almost certainly a pilot suicide, but both the airline and Indian authorities are really struggling culturally with that explanation for 241 deaths.
Ok that is a wee bit mental
There was a previous suspected pilot suicide in China - the Chinese government suppressed the report in the interests of public safety or some such.
I don't know who writes Starmer's speeches, but he needs to get a new speech writer. This is supposed to be a big set piece re-re-re-relaunch of Patriotic Renewal.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
I was assuming that the engine was still on when they discovered the issue with the switch.
They say that they had an issue with the switch on the ground at Heathrow, when they went to switch on the engine before the flight. They say the switch didn’t engage properly in the ‘run’ position. It’s a switch that controls the fuel line to the engine.
The previous accident was almost certainly a pilot suicide, but both the airline and Indian authorities are really struggling culturally with that explanation for 241 deaths.
Hang on!
I thought they WERE blaming the pilot to cover less than optimal maintenance issues!
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
NImrods routinely did it but those crews would have welcomed a crash to get away from the Honkers.
Guys in blue do lots of silly things that civvy aviation definitely don’t. Reversers in flight is a good one, or tactical approaches. Most airlines use derated takeoffs as well, because they have to pay for their own engine maintenance. Look up “balanced field” or “assumed temperature”.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 21s Not sure if I misheard. But Starmer seems to be claiming Mandelson told him he “barely knew” Epstein. Which he then believed. I cannot comprehend how he thinks that line will be seen as credible. We all saw the photos of them palling around buying clothes together.
Labour just needs to close its eyes, elect Angela Rayner or Ed Miliband as leader now, and hope for the best. No one is going to emerge from this broken government as a better alternative than them so you're only wasting valuable time until the inevitable happens
Taz, Michael Lonsdale was excellent. He played the detective in the original film of "Day of the Jackal" and the French ambassador in "The Remains of the Day." He also popped up in a couple of episode of the French version of Maigret with Bruno Cremer in the title role. ....
And who can forget his Drax in Moonraker.
""James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season."
Best line in the series.
The hill I die on is that is the best Bond movie, in spite of the similarities to its predecessor
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
I was assuming that the engine was still on when they discovered the issue with the switch.
They say that they had an issue with the switch on the ground at Heathrow, when they went to switch on the engine before the flight. They say the switch didn’t engage properly in the ‘run’ position. It’s a switch that controls the fuel line to the engine.
The previous accident was almost certainly a pilot suicide, but both the airline and Indian authorities are really struggling culturally with that explanation for 241 deaths.
Ok that is a wee bit mental
There was a previous suspected pilot suicide in China - the Chinese government suppressed the report in the interests of public safety or some such.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
I was assuming that the engine was still on when they discovered the issue with the switch.
They say that they had an issue with the switch on the ground at Heathrow, when they went to switch on the engine before the flight. They say the switch didn’t engage properly in the ‘run’ position. It’s a switch that controls the fuel line to the engine.
The previous accident was almost certainly a pilot suicide, but both the airline and Indian authorities are really struggling culturally with that explanation for 241 deaths.
Hang on!
I thought they WERE blaming the pilot to cover less than optimal maintenance issues!
You have the families of the pilots, the pilots union, Air India and the Indian Government all interacting.
Taz, Michael Lonsdale was excellent. He played the detective in the original film of "Day of the Jackal" and the French ambassador in "The Remains of the Day." He also popped up in a couple of episode of the French version of Maigret with Bruno Cremer in the title role. ....
Ooh, I need to give Day of the Jackal another watch,
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 21s Not sure if I misheard. But Starmer seems to be claiming Mandelson told him he “barely knew” Epstein. Which he then believed. I cannot comprehend how he thinks that line will be seen as credible. We all saw the photos of them palling around buying clothes together.
Starmer is now desperately spinning that Mandelson is a sh*t and has always been a sh*t, despite him being intrinsically linked to all Labour governments of the past 3 decades.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 21s Not sure if I misheard. But Starmer seems to be claiming Mandelson told him he “barely knew” Epstein. Which he then believed. I cannot comprehend how he thinks that line will be seen as credible. We all saw the photos of them palling around buying clothes together.
FT journalist put it to Starmer at the time of his appointment that Starmer had stayed in Epstein's NY mansion when Epstein was in pookie....don't know about you, but I am not in the habit of letting people I hardly know stay in my multi-million dollar residence while I am away. My good mates, perhaps.
Would have thought that would have alarm bells ringing for Mr Forensic. As he now claims Mandy lied to him about staying with him etc.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
I was assuming that the engine was still on when they discovered the issue with the switch.
They say that they had an issue with the switch on the ground at Heathrow, when they went to switch on the engine before the flight. They say the switch didn’t engage properly in the ‘run’ position. It’s a switch that controls the fuel line to the engine.
The previous accident was almost certainly a pilot suicide, but both the airline and Indian authorities are really struggling culturally with that explanation for 241 deaths.
Hang on!
I thought they WERE blaming the pilot to cover less than optimal maintenance issues!
You have the families of the pilots, the pilots union, Air India and the Indian Government all interacting.
Air India and the Government were blaming the pilot since day one.
Taz, Michael Lonsdale was excellent. He played the detective in the original film of "Day of the Jackal" and the French ambassador in "The Remains of the Day." He also popped up in a couple of episode of the French version of Maigret with Bruno Cremer in the title role. ....
And who can forget his Drax in Moonraker.
""James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season."
Best line in the series.
The hill I die on is that is the best Bond movie, in spite of the similarities to its predecessor
There's an in depth discussion of Moonraker on Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avery's "Video Archives" podcast where Roger attempts to convince Quentin of the same view.
To get back to insiders, apols if I missed it but has there been anny comment on Bezos laying off a huge chunk of the Washington Post's journalists? That cnut arsing about with penis shaped rockets and multi $m weddings in Venice while turning a serious newspaper into Völkischer Beobachter epitomises the state we're in.
I'm not generally someone who does protests or boycotts, but I am so revolted by Bezos' recent antics that I have actually resolved to stop using Amazon. I have been spending £3k-6k a year with them for at least 20 years. No more. No Prime, no Audible, no physical goods through the post. It's going to cost me maybe 5% extra on that spend, plus some extra time finding new sources for some stuff, but I'm so p****d off at this new kakistocracy.
Amazon are often not the cheapest places to buy things these days. The plague of dodgy Chinese sellers (both brands you never heard of playing the algorithm to get listed high up and as FBA sellers) is also a big negative.
Yeah, that was already starting to turn me off to be fair. Even if I knew exactly what I wanted so eg searched for "Anker 60w usb-c charger" the site would bloat the results with cheap crappy alternatives I hadn't asked for and that had no business being weighted so heavily in the results.
And their habit of “binning” products from different vendors means that the fakes are in the same pile as the real items.
So you could buy from the manufacturers store on Amazon. And get a fake.
Yup. And things like Anker chargers are just the kind of thing that get faked.
I definitely wouldn't buy anything of that nature from there - it is asking for trouble.
Cheap chargers are quite the hazard.
Never buy climbing gear online. Never ever. Some horrifying stories about quickdraws in particular.
Don’t buy anything that will kill you if it fails or is faulty, from any source you don’t implicitly trust.
It’s quite amazing that it needs to be said. There’s a lot of fake Chinese safety gear out there, that’s not as strong as it says it is.
The thing is that the state has realised for centuries that it's an aid to commerce if trade is regulated so that buyers can trust what they're buying from sellers. Hence the standardisation of weights and measures. The laws against mixing chalk into flour, etc. Roadworthiness tests for cars.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 21s Not sure if I misheard. But Starmer seems to be claiming Mandelson told him he “barely knew” Epstein. Which he then believed. I cannot comprehend how he thinks that line will be seen as credible. We all saw the photos of them palling around buying clothes together.
FT journalist put it to Starmer at the time of his appointment that Starmer had stayed in Epstein's NY mansion when Epstein was in pookie....don't know about you, but I am not in the habit of letting people I hardly know stay in my multi-million dollar residence while I am away. My good mates, perhaps.
Would have thought that would have alarm bells ringing for Mr Forensic. As he now claims Mandy lied to him about staying with him etc.
Feel a bit sorry for the bloke who introduced Starmer. He sounds like he does a lot for the local community and when he agreed to the intro he didn't know he would be having to stand there with all this Mandy stuff.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
Attended a Zoom lecture a couple of weeks ago on the subject of the Potomac crash and in the discussion someone mentioned the Air India crash. the speaker, who we were assured was an airline safety expert, and in any event an experienced military and civil airlines pilot was of the opinion that someone was playing silly whatsis with the switches somewhere and when the final report came out Air India could be in serious trouble.
Both switches failing at the same time in the same way (as they would have to cause the Ahemedabad crash) just isn't credible. It'll be human error or malevolence like almost all aircraft mishaps.
Both switches from the Air India crash were recovered and tested. They were in working order - they are pretty robust things.
In addition, what happened was this - the switches were apparently moved about a second apart. According to a sensing circuit built in to them. In the exact same sequence, the respective engines started to shut down - registered by other sensors in dependent systems.
When the pilot flying the plane asked his colleague if he had shut the switches (on the voice recorder) and was told no…
The sensors detected the switches being flipped back to on (with a small time difference, again), and the engines restarted (according to their sensor systems). But too late to save the aircraft.
No one has been able to construct a plausible scenario apart from one of the pilots operating the switches.
Labour just needs to close its eyes, elect Angela Rayner or Ed Miliband as leader now, and hope for the best. No one is going to emerge from this broken government as a better alternative than them so you're only wasting valuable time until the inevitable happens
Only Rayner has a chance against Farage is my view these days.
But that's in an actual campaign and that is three years away unless the entire government falls.
I suspect that bit was genuine. But Starmer agreed to believe a serial bullsitter.
I don't see where this ends except with a new Prime Minister. Whether he deserves it or not the media pack, his Labour Party rivals and the Conservatives* scent blood.
* Didn't Farage consider Mandelson an inspired choice?
Feel a bit sorry for the bloke who introduced Starmer. He sounds like he does a lot for the local community and when he agreed to the intro he didn't know he would be having to stand there with all this Mandy stuff.
A bit like being the warm up act for Nish Kumar at the comedy club.
In a sense the PM, in his defence, relied on whataboutery. I only knew what everyone knew. I believed him and others didn't criticise my decision at the time. We followed the correct process at the time.
All this misses the unique position of the PM. He decides who researches what and why. He has access no-one else has. He has top think ahead about outcomes that the public and the media don't. The PM decides if the 'process' won't do. The PM job is to make the right calls when everyone else is telling you you are wrong.
That's what a Number 1 is. The buck stops here. The argument that my decision was no worse than other people's would be won't work. That's why no-one normal wants or can do the job.
Mr. Pete, it's all very well posting these reams of text laced with subtlety and nuance but it makes it very difficult for us to discern your true feelings when you insist on sitting on the fence like this.
Morris. I am of the opinion that Starmer over the six years he has been Labour leader has been on the whole given an unfair raw deal by the media and PB posters. But today he has admitted to an error so egregious that resignation is the only option.
It doesn't really matter that Epstein lied. The decision to make him US Ambassador was Starmer's, cheered on by Gove and Dan Hodges. But Gove and Dan Hodges aren't Prime Minister. He pulled the trigger and the only way forward for his party and the nation is to fall on his sword. Starmer's position is untenable. Everyone now seems to know this except Starmer. Where does the buck stop?
For Epstein read Mandelson. A Freudian slip I have made more than once on here this week.
Comments
So, what if Farage or Polanski actually wins? I would expect 3 possible outcomes based on how the Trump presidency has played out:..
There is a fourth possible (and I would argue more likely) outcome.
The "outsider" (is it really accurate to call Farage that now ?) makes an even greater hash of things than the last half dozen administrations.
That appears to be what happened with the most recent outsider win (Brexit), judging by opinion polling on how it turned out.
Is there any reason to believe that either Farage or Polanski would be better prepared for government than was Starmer ?
I very much doubt it.
Starmer is now at the same sort of point that Theresa May was in the summer of 2017, that Boris Johnson was after Partygate, and that Liz Truss was after the market reaction to her “mini” Budget. Theresa May lasted two years. Boris Johnson a little under a year, Liz Truss 29 days.
2027 as his exit year is available at 8.2:1 on Betfair. 2026 is now the shortest I've seen it at 1.39.
Made a mental note never to use them again.
You could even consider changing the law to reduce the planning burden, or at least change it so that the desired outcome is achieved with less overhead.
There have been loads of ideas talked about on here over the years.
Tiso's Perth do well out of me if I'm heading north without something. Good location, shame about the glass factory.
Taz, Michael Lonsdale was excellent. He played the detective in the original film of "Day of the Jackal" and the French ambassador in "The Remains of the Day." He also popped up in a couple of episode of the French version of Maigret with Bruno Cremer in the title role.
....
Presumably the complaints about counterfeits were starting to pile up.
It’s quite amazing that it needs to be said. There’s a lot of fake Chinese safety gear out there, that’s not as strong as it says it is.
feels like Labour is stuck in the seventh circle of leadership contest hell, ie pingponging endlessly between 'he should go!' and 'but not be replaced by any of the people available in this actual life'
"The sources quoted by PTI revealed that upon landing in Bengaluru on Monday morning, the pilot recorded the defect in the log book, pointing out that the fuel switch slipped from 'run' to 'cut off'. The fuel switch was reportedly not getting locked in its position. The 'run' and 'cut off' options are used to start or shut down engines respectively."
The previous accident was almost certainly a pilot suicide, but both the airline and Indian authorities are really struggling culturally with that explanation for 241 deaths.
Moved to Wales in 2024 to "bring up my family in the countryside", retaining his position as a Councillor in Barnet.
Then on December 31st 2025 resigned from the Council, aiui too late for a byelection to be held so the residents are unrepresented until May, and - coincidentally - in time to stand for the Reform Leader in Wales position.
DYOC.
So then it's less a question of Starmer's judgement in appointing a known sleazeball, where he's separate and an external observer, but where he's one of the clique.
I think this gets a lot worse for Starmer.
In addition, what happened was this - the switches were apparently moved about a second apart. According to a sensing circuit built in to them. In the exact same sequence, the respective engines started to shut down - registered by other sensors in dependent systems.
When the pilot flying the plane asked his colleague if he had shut the switches (on the voice recorder) and was told no…
The sensors detected the switches being flipped back to on (with a small time difference, again), and the engines restarted (according to their sensor systems). But too late to save the aircraft.
No one has been able to construct a plausible scenario apart from one of the pilots operating the switches.
It doesn't really matter that Epstein lied. The decision to make him US Ambassador was Starmer's, cheered on by Gove and Dan Hodges. But Gove and Dan Hodges aren't Prime Minister. He pulled the trigger and the only way forward for his party and the nation is to fall on his sword. Starmer's position is untenable. Everyone now seems to know this except Starmer. Where does the buck stop?
""James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season."
Best line in the series.
Streeting is who I will vote for assuming he runs.
This surely isn't doing him any good.
I thought they WERE blaming the pilot to cover less than optimal maintenance issues!
I’m going to watch Boon on ITVx
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
21s
Not sure if I misheard. But Starmer seems to be claiming Mandelson told him he “barely knew” Epstein. Which he then believed. I cannot comprehend how he thinks that line will be seen as credible. We all saw the photos of them palling around buying clothes together.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2019372632458818002
Labour just needs to close its eyes, elect Angela Rayner or Ed Miliband as leader now, and hope for the best. No one is going to emerge from this broken government as a better alternative than them so you're only wasting valuable time until the inevitable happens
Would have thought that would have alarm bells ringing for Mr Forensic. As he now claims Mandy lied to him about staying with him etc.
To quote Helen Reddy. It has to be "Angie Baby".
https://x.com/ondisasters/status/1944442108451951092
They have to be lifted over a gate to change position, and it’s not possible to move them just by pushing down.
This seems to have broken down recently.
But that's in an actual campaign and that is three years away unless the entire government falls.
I don't see where this ends except with a new Prime Minister. Whether he deserves it or not the media pack, his Labour Party rivals and the Conservatives* scent blood.
* Didn't Farage consider Mandelson an inspired choice?
All this misses the unique position of the PM. He decides who researches what and why. He has access no-one else has. He has top think ahead about outcomes that the public and the media don't. The PM decides if the 'process' won't do. The PM job is to make the right calls when everyone else is telling you you are wrong.
That's what a Number 1 is. The buck stops here. The argument that my decision was no worse than other people's would be won't work. That's why no-one normal wants or can do the job.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
15s
There we go. Starmer “clarifies” his remarks yesterday.