Here’s what prominent Brits said as America’s cities burned.
Very fortunately, protesters mourning Nowak have not ignited infrastructure, murdered anyone, or otherwise cut an antisocial swathe of destruction through the UK. To the extent any of them care what America thinks, we urge them to remain peaceful—and we expect they will. Just like Henry Nowak and just like Americans, ordinary Brits have been slandered as racist. Thus violent. They’re not.
It’s the sort of trolling you expect from the Russians.
Maybe the foreign office could just post pictures of Jan 6th, BLM riots, the LA riots, victims of ICE murders etc and then someone in a greenhouse throwing stones.
Just call in their Amassader and make it clear that if they don't stop it we'll start trolling Trump in a way that makes Newsom look like an amateur!
Two can play at that game and while they have semi literate interns we have people who can do complete sentences and proper punctuation.
Peter.
"FAKE NEWS from the RADICAL LEFT LUNATIC Peter Cairns! Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Too Right... Shoot first! He might be a messenger!
US delegation at the Russian Davos includes Steven Segal and Candace Owens.
Under Siege is the best Steven Seagal movie ever made!
Well that's like saying rancid liver is better than puke!
Peter.
"Yeah, I'm gonna shock the world by spreading ca-ca all over the place. Guangzhou is a chemical weapons plant masquerading as a fertilizer plant. We know this. The Chinese know that we know. But we make-believe that we don't know and the Chinese make-believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know. Everybody knows."
Here’s what prominent Brits said as America’s cities burned.
Very fortunately, protesters mourning Nowak have not ignited infrastructure, murdered anyone, or otherwise cut an antisocial swathe of destruction through the UK. To the extent any of them care what America thinks, we urge them to remain peaceful—and we expect they will. Just like Henry Nowak and just like Americans, ordinary Brits have been slandered as racist. Thus violent. They’re not.
It’s the sort of trolling you expect from the Russians.
Maybe the foreign office could just post pictures of Jan 6th, BLM riots, the LA riots, victims of ICE murders etc and then someone in a greenhouse throwing stones.
Just call in their Amassader and make it clear that if they don't stop it we'll start trolling Trump in a way that makes Newsom look like an amateur!
Two can play at that game and while they have semi literate interns we have people who can do complete sentences and proper punctuation.
Peter.
"FAKE NEWS from the RADICAL LEFT LUNATIC Peter Cairns! Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Too Right... Shoot first! He might be a messenger!
US delegation at the Russian Davos includes Steven Segal and Candace Owens.
Under Siege is the best Steven Seagal movie ever made!
Well that's like saying rancid liver is better than puke!
Peter.
"Yeah, I'm gonna shock the world by spreading ca-ca all over the place. Guangzhou is a chemical weapons plant masquerading as a fertilizer plant. We know this. The Chinese know that we know. But we make-believe that we don't know and the Chinese make-believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know. Everybody knows."
That's the sequel!
I know.
"Travis Dane: [holding a CD-ROM] 300,000 pages of code - or 60 minutes of triple-X interactive rubber and leather bondage porno. Technology can be used for beauty... . or debasement. And until you plug it in, you just can't tell. [Puts the CD in the drive] Travis Dane: Oh, gee! I seem to have brought targeting codes."
Here’s what prominent Brits said as America’s cities burned.
Very fortunately, protesters mourning Nowak have not ignited infrastructure, murdered anyone, or otherwise cut an antisocial swathe of destruction through the UK. To the extent any of them care what America thinks, we urge them to remain peaceful—and we expect they will. Just like Henry Nowak and just like Americans, ordinary Brits have been slandered as racist. Thus violent. They’re not.
It’s the sort of trolling you expect from the Russians.
Maybe the foreign office could just post pictures of Jan 6th, BLM riots, the LA riots, victims of ICE murders etc and then someone in a greenhouse throwing stones.
Just call in their Amassader and make it clear that if they don't stop it we'll start trolling Trump in a way that makes Newsom look like an amateur!
Two can play at that game and while they have semi literate interns we have people who can do complete sentences and proper punctuation.
Peter.
Always awkward criticising other people and their ability to write when making spelling errors in the post.
It's not a spelling error it's a new word...just like "covfefe"
The famous Castle Tirol, from which the entire Tirol including the better known part in Austria originally got its name. With dog. It was cloudy this morning, but still hot, as you can see, but now it’s sunny.
Those pictures look identical to me. Strange weather.
IanB2 would never break the rules and post two pictures in a day, see...
I recropped and reposted the photo, and when the post came up, the photo had disappeared. So I refreshed the page and it had still not appeared, so I uploaded it again. Then after the six minutes were up, I saw it was there twice. Over recent weeks, Vanilla seems to be doing that a lot recently - not confirming posts so people post again and then there’s a double post.
By way of compensation I have removed both photos from this repost.
I click 'Preview' first every time, which seems to prevent the double post problem. Or I'm just lucky.
Here’s what prominent Brits said as America’s cities burned.
Very fortunately, protesters mourning Nowak have not ignited infrastructure, murdered anyone, or otherwise cut an antisocial swathe of destruction through the UK. To the extent any of them care what America thinks, we urge them to remain peaceful—and we expect they will. Just like Henry Nowak and just like Americans, ordinary Brits have been slandered as racist. Thus violent. They’re not.
It’s the sort of trolling you expect from the Russians.
Maybe the foreign office could just post pictures of Jan 6th, BLM riots, the LA riots, victims of ICE murders etc and then someone in a greenhouse throwing stones.
Just call in their Amassader and make it clear that if they don't stop it we'll start trolling Trump in a way that makes Newsom look like an amateur!
Two can play at that game and while they have semi literate interns we have people who can do complete sentences and proper punctuation.
Peter.
Always awkward criticising other people and their ability to write when making spelling errors in the post.
It's not a spelling error it's a new word...just like "covfefe"
I used to go out with the brother of Steve Diggle of the Buzzcocks. Spent time with Tony Wilson. Friends with Roland Gift. He came to my birthday party.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
Mmm. No. They want it to work and be safe and practical, which business on its own will not deliver.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
Here they are more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of risks that were ignored rather than thought about.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
No, I don’t have my groups muddled up. I literally clicked on your link.
When they say this clearly they don’t want to work on this.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
If they wanted to work to accommodate them then great.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Bugger - typos and time limits.
"I don't see that keeping vehicles, especially ones not under control of a driver, off pavements, is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces."
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I think he should be made Foreign Sec., or possibly Attorney General. Follow the example of the late Alec Douglas-Home. Or whatever his hast designated name was.
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I don't know. Do you have any clue?
I've been genuinely - and pleasantly - surprised that Sunak has stuck it out on the backbenches, which I think is a better look than doing a rapid bunk a la Blair and Cameron, or running away to avoid the judgement of a standards inquiry (Johnson).
Maybe it will depend on whether Starmer has any personal friends within the Commons.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
Mmm. No. They want it to work and be safe and practical, which business on its own will not deliver.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
Here they are more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of risks that were ignored rather than thought about.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
No, I don’t have my groups muddled up. I literally clicked on your link.
When they say this clearly they don’t want to work on this.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
I used to go out with the brother of Steve Diggle of the Buzzcocks. Spent time with Tony Wilson. Friends with Roland Gift. He came to my birthday party.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
Mmm. No. They want it to work and be safe and practical, which business on its own will not deliver.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
Here they are more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of risks that were ignored rather than thought about.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
No, I don’t have my groups muddled up. I literally clicked on your link.
When they say this clearly they don’t want to work on this.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I don't know. Do you have any clue?
I've been genuinely - and pleasantly - surprised that Sunak has stuck it out on the backbenches, which I think is a better look than doing a rapid bunk a la Blair and Cameron, or running away to avoid the judgement of a standards inquiry (Johnson).
Maybe it will depend on whether Starmer has any personal friends within the Commons.
No I really don't but cannot see him doing a Sunak
He goes largely because of Mandelson and I cannot see him remaining in government in any role
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I don't know. Do you have any clue?
I've been genuinely - and pleasantly - surprised that Sunak has stuck it out on the backbenches, which I think is a better look than doing a rapid bunk a la Blair and Cameron, or running away to avoid the judgement of a standards inquiry (Johnson).
Maybe it will depend on whether Starmer has any personal friends within the Commons.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/03/trump-public-funding-proposal ..A set of sweeping policy changes unveiled by the White House would leave officials appointed by Donald Trump vetting every public grant issued to universities and nongovernmental organizations on the basis of their fidelity to “American values”, as defined by the president, triggering widespread concern.
All federal grants approved by Trump’s political appointees must “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities”, according to a lengthy proposal published by the office of management and budget (OMB).
Federal awards during the Biden administration “were often used during those years to promote a ‘woke’ policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public”, the proposal claims in its executive summary. “Collectively, these policies wasted a great amount of taxpayer resources and caused great harm to public trust in government.”
A 400-page document proposing rule changes was published on Friday without a press release or other formal attention, and first reported by the New York Times. Nonetheless, by Tuesday afternoon, more than 3,000 public comments had been offered about the proposal, almost exclusively in alarmed opposition.
“The proposed federal legislation that will by-pass peer review of scientific grant proposals in favor of political oversight, allow grants to be terminated at any time, for any reason, and largely prevent the use of federal funds for publishing, attending meetings, or collaborating internationally would be another devastating blow to American science,” wrote Andy McCammon, a chemistry research professor at the University of California at San Diego, and member of the editorial board of the National Academy of Sciences...
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Bugger - typos and time limits.
"I don't see that keeping vehicles, especially ones not under control of a driver, off pavements, is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces."
As an aside, robots aren't the main problem around here but the increasing amount of pavement being taken over by people who won't cut their hedges. This is forcing people, prams and others onto busy roads. Presume the council could, if they had funds, require people to get their plants off the highway. Anyone campaigning for that? (Problem of living in a green and pleasant land!)
I've never seen a delivery robot. Are they a wealthy, safe area thingy? If pavements are for pedestrians then why does every driver seem to think they are obliged to half park on them?
I've never seen a delivery robot. Are they a wealthy, safe area thingy? If pavements are for pedestrians then why does every driver seem to think they are obliged to half park on them?
I've never seen one but I did see a robot cleaner the other day in Tesco.
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and Starmer - someone will have to find out if that would be the largest number of former Prime Ministers still alive at any point.
Three Labour "elder statesmen" and six Conservative "elder statespersons" (yes, I know). I imagine Starmer will find a role of some sort - the question is or are the terms on which he leaves. All political careers end in failure of course but it's the coming to terms with the sense of not having accomplished all you wanted which seems to be the one thing the ex-PMs share.
I imagine there'll be a memoir or a self-justification (depending on your perspective).
I suspect there won't be a by-election - the Greens would fancy their chances in the constituency. As to whether Starmer will continue as an MP after the next election, I suspect not but then I suspect Rishi will also be on his way to pastures different.
I see your profile picture. That’s Johnny Cash. My hero too. Arrested seven times. Smuggled 668 amphetamines across the Mexican border in 1965. Took every drug there was and drank like I did. Cheated on his first wife. Slept with more woman than I ever did. Hit bottom in a cave in Tennessee in 1968 trying to crawl off and die. And then he got up. He got clean. He spent the rest of his life singing for prisoners and addicts and the people the country threw away because he knew he was one of them.
That was the whole point of the Man in Black. He wore it for the poor and the beaten down. He wore it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime. He wore it for the ones who never heard a word of Jesus. He wore it for the addicted and the dying. He wore it as a standing witness that no one is past saving.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Bugger - typos and time limits.
"I don't see that keeping vehicles, especially ones not under control of a driver, off pavements, is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces."
As an aside, robots aren't the main problem around here but the increasing amount of pavement being taken over by people who won't cut their hedges. This is forcing people, prams and others onto busy roads. Presume the council could, if they had funds, require people to get their plants off the highway. Anyone campaigning for that? (Problem of living in a green and pleasant land!)
I did once receive a letter from the council threatening enforcement action because I was a bit behind on keeping my landlord's hedge trimmed. So some councils are proactive about it.
Our house here doesn't front onto a pavement, but I have started what promises to be a lifelong struggle against the advances of willow and briars onto the public highway.
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I think he be made Foreign Sec., or possibly Attorney General.
Demotion ?
That's what Alec Douglas-Home did.
Maybe but Starmer's fall is due to Mandelson and he has terrible public ratings
I don't believe Mandelson is the catalyst, more the straw that broke the camel's back.
Inertia, U turns and general disappointment are all on Starmer's charge sheet. If he had been a solid PM he would have survived Mandelson. We all know why he did it. See Michael Gove's unequivocal support for the Mandelson appointment.
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I think he be made Foreign Sec., or possibly Attorney General.
Demotion ?
That's what Alec Douglas-Home did.
Maybe but Starmer's fall is due to Mandelson and he has terrible public ratings
I don't believe Mandelson is the catalyst, more the straw that broke the camel's back.
Inertia, U turns and general disappointment are all on Starmer's charge sheet. If he had been a solid PM he would have survived Mandelson. We all know why he did it. See Michael Gove's unequivocal support for the Mandelson appointment.
Of course Mandelson is his downfall, the rest added to his failures
It is irrelevant who endorsed Mandelson, Starmer holds the can all by himself
I've never seen a delivery robot. Are they a wealthy, safe area thingy? If pavements are for pedestrians then why does every driver seem to think they are obliged to half park on them?
I've never seen one but I did see a robot cleaner the other day in Tesco.
I saw a delivery robot at Changi Airport in Singapore while Mrs Stodge and I were waiting for our flight back to London. Extraordinary things - delivering small packages through the terminal.
Our hotel had vacuuming robots which cleaned the floor - I wanted to take one home but Mrs Stodge refused.
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I think he be made Foreign Sec., or possibly Attorney General.
Demotion ?
That's what Alec Douglas-Home did.
Maybe but Starmer's fall is due to Mandelson and he has terrible public ratings
I don't believe Mandelson is the catalyst, more the straw that broke the camel's back.
Inertia, U turns and general disappointment are all on Starmer's charge sheet. If he had been a solid PM he would have survived Mandelson. We all know why he did it. See Michael Gove's unequivocal support for the Mandelson appointment.
Of course Mandelson is his downfall, the rest added to his failures
It is irrelevant who endorsed Mandelson, Starmer holds the can all by himself
I believe you are allowing your visceral hatred of Starmer cloud your judgement.
I've never seen a delivery robot. Are they a wealthy, safe area thingy? If pavements are for pedestrians then why does every driver seem to think they are obliged to half park on them?
Pavements (Central London perspective)
They are a lot cleaner than once they were. The local councils do spend a lot of money on it, but mostly it works.
Obstructions - every Albanian builder and his wife seems to think they can stick up a cone or two and requisition the pavement and the adjacent roadway. They'll happily divert everyone, and dent every car they can. - tourists simply have no idea. If the pavement can accommodate a slow moving chain of stumbling fools then they arrange themselves into as wide a configuration as possible. (Pavement unrelated - They're also outstanding at getting off escalators and stopping, and barging into the people that want to get off trains.) - dog walkers really don't need to stand as far away from their dogs as the super long lead allows - Arab men of the sort that like to have their wives walk behind them. It really isn't your pavement! - rocket propelled wheelchair types - it isn't your pavement either - children - there was a time when the child vs adult pavement face-off would have seen you in the hospital. Times can change again! - policemen... er hang on officer... look I wasn't being entirely serious... honest....
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I think he be made Foreign Sec., or possibly Attorney General.
Demotion ?
That's what Alec Douglas-Home did.
Maybe but Starmer's fall is due to Mandelson and he has terrible public ratings
I don't believe Mandelson is the catalyst, more the straw that broke the camel's back.
Inertia, U turns and general disappointment are all on Starmer's charge sheet. If he had been a solid PM he would have survived Mandelson. We all know why he did it. See Michael Gove's unequivocal support for the Mandelson appointment.
Of course Mandelson is his downfall, the rest added to his failures
It is irrelevant who endorsed Mandelson, Starmer holds the can all by himself
I believe you are allowing your visceral hatred of Starmer cloud your judgement.
I do not visceral hate anyone, I do not do hate, I leave that to the left
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I think he be made Foreign Sec., or possibly Attorney General.
Demotion ?
That's what Alec Douglas-Home did.
Maybe but Starmer's fall is due to Mandelson and he has terrible public ratings
I don't believe Mandelson is the catalyst, more the straw that broke the camel's back.
Inertia, U turns and general disappointment are all on Starmer's charge sheet. If he had been a solid PM he would have survived Mandelson. We all know why he did it. See Michael Gove's unequivocal support for the Mandelson appointment.
Of course Mandelson is his downfall, the rest added to his failures
It is irrelevant who endorsed Mandelson, Starmer holds the can all by himself
I believe you are allowing your visceral hatred of Starmer cloud your judgement.
I do not visceral hate anyone, I do not do hate, I leave that to the left
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
Mmm. No. They want it to work and be safe and practical, which business on its own will not deliver.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
Here they are more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of risks that were ignored rather than thought about.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
No, I don’t have my groups muddled up. I literally clicked on your link.
When they say this clearly they don’t want to work on this.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
"The streets are alive !"
B movie sci-fi. Or the next episode of Dr Who.
"The streets are full of actors, I don't know why"
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I think he be made Foreign Sec., or possibly Attorney General.
Demotion ?
That's what Alec Douglas-Home did.
Maybe but Starmer's fall is due to Mandelson and he has terrible public ratings
I don't believe Mandelson is the catalyst, more the straw that broke the camel's back.
Inertia, U turns and general disappointment are all on Starmer's charge sheet. If he had been a solid PM he would have survived Mandelson. We all know why he did it. See Michael Gove's unequivocal support for the Mandelson appointment.
Of course Mandelson is his downfall, the rest added to his failures
It is irrelevant who endorsed Mandelson, Starmer holds the can all by himself
I believe you are allowing your visceral hatred of Starmer cloud your judgement.
I do not visceral hate anyone, I do not do hate, I leave that to the left
I'm sorry to disagree with my fellow (very) senior citizen but 'hatred' of their opponents is not confined to the those of us on the left.
Like Big G I don't 'hate' anyone. And I'm happy to be described 'on the Left.'
Indeed. As well as Buffy and the Gold Blend adverts, Head played the Prime Minister in Little Britain.
RIP. He always kept a straight face as David Walliams' character (I believe he was supposed to be a hilariously OTT version of Mandelson) kept coming onto him!
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I think he be made Foreign Sec., or possibly Attorney General.
Demotion ?
That's what Alec Douglas-Home did.
Maybe but Starmer's fall is due to Mandelson and he has terrible public ratings
I don't believe Mandelson is the catalyst, more the straw that broke the camel's back.
Inertia, U turns and general disappointment are all on Starmer's charge sheet. If he had been a solid PM he would have survived Mandelson. We all know why he did it. See Michael Gove's unequivocal support for the Mandelson appointment.
Of course Mandelson is his downfall, the rest added to his failures
It is irrelevant who endorsed Mandelson, Starmer holds the can all by himself
I believe you are allowing your visceral hatred of Starmer cloud your judgement.
I do not visceral hate anyone, I do not do hate, I leave that to the left
I'm sorry to disagree with my fellow (very) senior citizen but 'hatred' of their opponents is not confined to the those of us on the left.
Like Big G I don't 'hate' anyone. And I'm happy to be described 'on the Left.'
It is time 'hate' was removed from political discourse and yes it is not at all just on the left
Here’s what prominent Brits said as America’s cities burned.
Very fortunately, protesters mourning Nowak have not ignited infrastructure, murdered anyone, or otherwise cut an antisocial swathe of destruction through the UK. To the extent any of them care what America thinks, we urge them to remain peaceful—and we expect they will. Just like Henry Nowak and just like Americans, ordinary Brits have been slandered as racist. Thus violent. They’re not.
It’s the sort of trolling you expect from the Russians.
Maybe the foreign office could just post pictures of Jan 6th, BLM riots, the LA riots, victims of ICE murders etc and then someone in a greenhouse throwing stones.
Just call in their Amassader and make it clear that if they don't stop it we'll start trolling Trump in a way that makes Newsom look like an amateur!
Two can play at that game and while they have semi literate interns we have people who can do complete sentences and proper punctuation.
Peter.
Always awkward criticising other people and their ability to write when making spelling errors in the post.
It's not a spelling error it's a new word...just like "covfefe"
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I think he be made Foreign Sec., or possibly Attorney General.
Demotion ?
That's what Alec Douglas-Home did.
Maybe but Starmer's fall is due to Mandelson and he has terrible public ratings
I don't believe Mandelson is the catalyst, more the straw that broke the camel's back.
Inertia, U turns and general disappointment are all on Starmer's charge sheet. If he had been a solid PM he would have survived Mandelson. We all know why he did it. See Michael Gove's unequivocal support for the Mandelson appointment.
Of course Mandelson is his downfall, the rest added to his failures
It is irrelevant who endorsed Mandelson, Starmer holds the can all by himself
I believe you are allowing your visceral hatred of Starmer cloud your judgement.
I do not visceral hate anyone, I do not do hate, I leave that to the left
I'm sorry to disagree with my fellow (very) senior citizen but 'hatred' of their opponents is not confined to the those of us on the left.
Like Big G I don't 'hate' anyone. And I'm happy to be described 'on the Left.'
It is time 'hate' was removed from political discourse and yes it is not at all just on the left
Quite remarkable words from the judge in the sentencing remarks for Paul Quinn, guilty of the crime for which Malkinson was wrongly convicted.
I hope the A-G appeals the sentence. Malkinson got a life sentence. Why should Quinn who actually did the crime only get 21 years.
The judge misses that the hero might be feeling guilty about the first trial in which an inept criminal justice system banged up an innocent man for two decades.
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I don't know. Do you have any clue?
I've been genuinely - and pleasantly - surprised that Sunak has stuck it out on the backbenches, which I think is a better look than doing a rapid bunk a la Blair and Cameron, or running away to avoid the judgement of a standards inquiry (Johnson).
Maybe it will depend on whether Starmer has any personal friends within the Commons.
No I really don't but cannot see him doing a Sunak
He goes largely because of Mandelson and I cannot see him remaining in government in any role
He's going due to awful personal ratings which precede Mandelson.
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I think he be made Foreign Sec., or possibly Attorney General.
Demotion ?
That's what Alec Douglas-Home did.
Maybe but Starmer's fall is due to Mandelson and he has terrible public ratings
I don't believe Mandelson is the catalyst, more the straw that broke the camel's back.
Inertia, U turns and general disappointment are all on Starmer's charge sheet. If he had been a solid PM he would have survived Mandelson. We all know why he did it. See Michael Gove's unequivocal support for the Mandelson appointment.
I think the Mandelson part of Starmer's downfall is because when the wheels fell off, and Mandy had to go, Starmer was (at best), economical with the truth.
We all know that the real reason Mandy got the job was because he is a slimeball who moved in Trump's sort of circles, and with whom it was plausible to believe Trump would cooperate, but Starmer has never been willing to actually say this.
If Starmer had come out and said "We knew the guy was a bit of a bounder, but he looked like the only guy we had who could really level with Trump. It's a pity he's turned out to be even more of a rotter than we expected, and we've sacked him immediately", I don't actually think it would have done Starmer much damage, and the media circus would have moved on quite quickly.
Instead, Starmer has spent months twisting and turning with "we did all the process right" answers, whilst the whole story was unravelling round him. It's made him look weak and untruthful. He's let the Tories skewer him with the humble address, from which lots of other fun and damaging revelations unrelated to Mandy have occurred (I doubt we've heard the last of Pat McFadden's quote about the PLP looking for people to tax to pay more benefits).
As always - it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover-up.
Maybe he should look at ICE behaviour before passing judgement on others
Which is nothing to do with you
We cannot get pissy with US politicians commenting on U.K. politics when all we ever do,here is comment on the US and its politics.
I rarely if ever comment on US politics but Vance and Musk are adding to our divisions
I think the difference is this isn't a Politican this is an Offical Statement from the State Department and therefore a Government intervention.
People elected or otherwise can express oppinions, they are just their own views,but Governments making statements are setting out the offical view and that makes it a diplomatic matter.
Quite remarkable words from the judge in the sentencing remarks for Paul Quinn, guilty of the crime for which Malkinson was wrongly convicted.
I hope the A-G appeals the sentence. Malkinson got a life sentence. Why should Quinn who actually did the crime only get 21 years.
Yes, if anything he should have got a longer sentence than Makinson for being happy to sit on his hands while Malkinson served a sentence he didn't deserve.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
I used to go out with the brother of Steve Diggle of the Buzzcocks. Spent time with Tony Wilson. Friends with Roland Gift. He came to my birthday party.
I used to go out with the brother of Steve Diggle of the Buzzcocks. Spent time with Tony Wilson. Friends with Roland Gift. He came to my birthday party.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
Delivery robots aren't using the pavements to travel to meet their friends but to deliver things to people. They move very slowly and cautiously and pose far less of a risk than people on e-scooters.
I used to go out with the brother of Steve Diggle of the Buzzcocks. Spent time with Tony Wilson. Friends with Roland Gift. He came to my birthday party.
Maybe he should look at ICE behaviour before passing judgement on others
Which is nothing to do with you
We cannot get pissy with US politicians commenting on U.K. politics when all we ever do,here is comment on the US and its politics.
I'm not aware of anyone in the Starmer government going onto X to denounce Trump and Vance for killing western civilisation, which they actually are doing, and which would also be the equivalent you should be looking for, and not a random politics blog.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
The companies using them have been rolling them out in pilot projects - the purpose of which is to test their use, identify, and resolve any problems arising. The campaign group have made a number of general points, but do they have any specific examples of incidents that have proved to be problematic?
In the absence of specific identified problems it would appear that the companies have behaved in a reasonable and responsible way and have been able to deal with any issues that have arisen. We shouldn't then punish them by forcing them to jump through extra hurdles.
I note, for example, that the robots run at 4mph - no more than a brisk walking pace. The main problem in sharing space (whether on a pavement or a road) is when people/vehicles move at very different speeds (e.g. a cyclist at ~10mph and a car at ~30mph). By choosing to run their robots at walking pace such problems are minimised. This isn't a limitation of the technology - Ukraine operates ground robots that are very nippy, in excess of 60 kph, for example.
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I think he be made Foreign Sec., or possibly Attorney General.
Demotion ?
That's what Alec Douglas-Home did.
Maybe but Starmer's fall is due to Mandelson and he has terrible public ratings
I don't believe Mandelson is the catalyst, more the straw that broke the camel's back.
Inertia, U turns and general disappointment are all on Starmer's charge sheet. If he had been a solid PM he would have survived Mandelson. We all know why he did it. See Michael Gove's unequivocal support for the Mandelson appointment.
I think the Mandelson part of Starmer's downfall is because when the wheels fell off, and Mandy had to go, Starmer was (at best), economical with the truth.
We all know that the real reason Mandy got the job was because he is a slimeball who moved in Trump's sort of circles, and with whom it was plausible to believe Trump would cooperate, but Starmer has never been willing to actually say this.
If Starmer had come out and said "We knew the guy was a bit of a bounder, but he looked like the only guy we had who could really level with Trump. It's a pity he's turned out to be even more of a rotter than we expected, and we've sacked him immediately", I don't actually think it would have done Starmer much damage, and the media circus would have moved on quite quickly.
Instead, Starmer has spent months twisting and turning with "we did all the process right" answers, whilst the whole story was unravelling round him. It's made him look weak and untruthful. He's let the Tories skewer him with the humble address, from which lots of other fun and damaging revelations unrelated to Mandy have occurred (I doubt we've heard the last of Pat McFadden's quote about the PLP looking for people to tax to pay more benefits).
As always - it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover-up.
I'm not sure it is even that. Starmer's reason for appointing Mandelson was that Morgan McSweeney told him to. That is what he cannot admit.
Maybe he should look at ICE behaviour before passing judgement on others
Which is nothing to do with you
We cannot get pissy with US politicians commenting on U.K. politics when all we ever do,here is comment on the US and its politics.
I'm not aware of anyone in the Starmer government going onto X to denounce Trump and Vance for killing western civilisation, which they actually are doing, and which would also be the equivalent you should be looking for, and not a random politics blog.
Sorry if it needs to be clear but when I say ‘we’ it’s PB not the govt 😀😀😀😀
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
Delivery robots aren't using the pavements to travel to meet their friends but to deliver things to people. They move very slowly and cautiously and pose far less of a risk than people on e-scooters.
But if left to their own devices they'll start to take liberties. Let's take steps now to discourage that.
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
I think you have your groups muddled up - Living Streets used to be called the Pedestrians' Association, and have been around since 1929. They were involved in things like the introduction of the Highway Code in the early 1930s and the invention of Pedestrian Crossings, including Zebras.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
Delivery robots are cute. I don't think the British people will tolerate attacks on them from officialdom.
I'm interested in the vehemence of @Taz ' reaction, and what other people have to say.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
Delivery robots aren't using the pavements to travel to meet their friends but to deliver things to people. They move very slowly and cautiously and pose far less of a risk than people on e-scooters.
But if left to their own devices they'll start to take liberties. Let's take steps now to discourage that.
My 25 year old daughter is FINALLY getting into Buffy and was staying with us this week. Rewatched "Hush" and the first four episodes (from my complete DVD collection) since Wednesday. Seems remarkably poignant now.
So Burnham's big idea is to reduce business rates on pubs.
15 years to think about the world and all he can manage is to imitate Farage.
His big idea is to resolve social care but how is a good question?
Like all aspiring tin-pot dictators over all the years his main idea is that he should be a tin-pot dictator. A manufactured mandate and a childish manifesto. What could possibly go wrong?
Comments
Peter.
England 184 for 7.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/4d64/live/cd846d50-60d3-11f1-b808-9f0a293e0062.jpg.webp
These loonies just want to stop the technology full stop.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
In all caps too. Sign of issues with the person who wrote the original.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe66vWg6Rk4
"Travis Dane: [holding a CD-ROM] 300,000 pages of code - or 60 minutes of triple-X interactive rubber and leather bondage porno. Technology can be used for beauty... . or debasement. And until you plug it in, you just can't tell.
[Puts the CD in the drive]
Travis Dane: Oh, gee! I seem to have brought targeting codes."
It's a Service Dog for Diplomats!
Peter.
Fun times.
I don't that keeping vehicles off pavements is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces.
Here they will stand more after things like making sure robots no not knock visually impaired people over; if left unaddressed it will go exactly like lithium batteries have, and before you know it the robots will double or treble in size and we will have a whole new wild west full of problems that were ignored rather than thought about ahead of time.
Are you thinking of Reclaim the Streets, who have somewhat anarchistic habits?
When they say this clearly they don’t want to work on this.
‘ LIVING STREETS DOES NOT WANT TO SEE DELIVERY ROBOTS ON OUR PAVEMENTS.’
If they wanted to work to accommodate them then great.
They’re the paving equivalent of NIMBYs
"I don't see that keeping vehicles, especially ones not under control of a driver, off pavements, is much of a demand. They are pedestrian spaces."
And on Starmer on the assumption he leaves no 10 does he go on the back benches or leave politics ?
I've been genuinely - and pleasantly - surprised that Sunak has stuck it out on the backbenches, which I think is a better look than doing a rapid bunk a la Blair and Cameron, or running away to avoid the judgement of a standards inquiry (Johnson).
Maybe it will depend on whether Starmer has any personal friends within the Commons.
B movie sci-fi. Or the next episode of Dr Who.
Where the streets have no name !
He goes largely because of Mandelson and I cannot see him remaining in government in any role
It was Labour who said he wouldn’t.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/03/trump-public-funding-proposal
..A set of sweeping policy changes unveiled by the White House would leave officials appointed by Donald Trump vetting every public grant issued to universities and nongovernmental organizations on the basis of their fidelity to “American values”, as defined by the president, triggering widespread concern.
All federal grants approved by Trump’s political appointees must “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities”, according to a lengthy proposal published by the office of management and budget (OMB).
Federal awards during the Biden administration “were often used during those years to promote a ‘woke’ policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public”, the proposal claims in its executive summary. “Collectively, these policies wasted a great amount of taxpayer resources and caused great harm to public trust in government.”
A 400-page document proposing rule changes was published on Friday without a press release or other formal attention, and first reported by the New York Times. Nonetheless, by Tuesday afternoon, more than 3,000 public comments had been offered about the proposal, almost exclusively in alarmed opposition.
“The proposed federal legislation that will by-pass peer review of scientific grant proposals in favor of political oversight, allow grants to be terminated at any time, for any reason, and largely prevent the use of federal funds for publishing, attending meetings, or collaborating internationally would be another devastating blow to American science,” wrote Andy McCammon, a chemistry research professor at the University of California at San Diego, and member of the editorial board of the National Academy of Sciences...
Are they a wealthy, safe area thingy?
If pavements are for pedestrians then why does every driver seem to think they are obliged to half park on them?
"Phenomenal detail from @FT obituary of the great Alex Younger, from @charles_clover & @JP_Rathbone:
When Dominic Cummings called him for the first time, he asked Younger what he was doing. “Plotting evil shit,” Younger replied."
Three Labour "elder statesmen" and six Conservative "elder statespersons" (yes, I know). I imagine Starmer will find a role of some sort - the question is or are the terms on which he leaves. All political careers end in failure of course but it's the coming to terms with the sense of not having accomplished all you wanted which seems to be the one thing the ex-PMs share.
I imagine there'll be a memoir or a self-justification (depending on your perspective).
I suspect there won't be a by-election - the Greens would fancy their chances in the constituency. As to whether Starmer will continue as an MP after the next election, I suspect not but then I suspect Rishi will also be on his way to pastures different.
Strange times.
You’re whole family is a disgrace
https://x.com/aaronjames619/status/2062905964731515061
I see your profile picture. That’s Johnny Cash. My hero too. Arrested seven times. Smuggled 668 amphetamines across the Mexican border in 1965. Took every drug there was and drank like I did. Cheated on his first wife. Slept with more woman than I ever did. Hit bottom in a cave in Tennessee in 1968 trying to crawl off and die. And then he got up. He got clean. He spent the rest of his life singing for prisoners and addicts and the people the country threw away because he knew he was one of them.
That was the whole point of the Man in Black. He wore it for the poor and the beaten down. He wore it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime. He wore it for the ones who never heard a word of Jesus. He wore it for the addicted and the dying. He wore it as a standing witness that no one is past saving.
You picked his picture. You did not pick his message. Try listening to the words.
https://x.com/HunterBiden/status/2062909270643892416
Our house here doesn't front onto a pavement, but I have started what promises to be a lifelong struggle against the advances of willow and briars onto the public highway.
Inertia, U turns and general disappointment are all on Starmer's charge sheet. If he had been a solid PM he would have survived Mandelson. We all know why he did it. See Michael Gove's unequivocal support for the Mandelson appointment.
It is irrelevant who endorsed Mandelson, Starmer holds the can all by himself
Our hotel had vacuuming robots which cleaned the floor - I wanted to take one home but Mrs Stodge refused.
I hope the A-G appeals the sentence. Malkinson got a life sentence. Why should Quinn who actually did the crime only get 21 years.
(Central London perspective)
They are a lot cleaner than once they were. The local councils do spend a lot of money on it, but mostly it works.
Obstructions
- every Albanian builder and his wife seems to think they can stick up a cone or two and requisition the pavement and the adjacent roadway. They'll happily divert everyone, and dent every car they can.
- tourists simply have no idea. If the pavement can accommodate a slow moving chain of stumbling fools then they arrange themselves into as wide a configuration as possible. (Pavement unrelated - They're also outstanding at getting off escalators and stopping, and barging into the people that want to get off trains.)
- dog walkers really don't need to stand as far away from their dogs as the super long lead allows
- Arab men of the sort that like to have their wives walk behind them. It really isn't your pavement!
- rocket propelled wheelchair types - it isn't your pavement either
- children - there was a time when the child vs adult pavement face-off would have seen you in the hospital. Times can change again!
- policemen... er hang on officer... look I wasn't being entirely serious... honest....
https://x.com/JDVance/status/2062938286977421755
Maybe he should look at ICE behaviour before passing judgement on others
Like Big G I don't 'hate' anyone. And I'm happy to be described 'on the Left.'
We cannot get pissy with US politicians commenting on U.K. politics when all we ever do,here is comment on the US and its politics.
Look at Farage and Yusaf
But Vance's track record is such that I didn't even bother clicking on william's link.
"Teen rapists spared jail partly because of intellectual limitations, judge's full remarks show"
We all know that the real reason Mandy got the job was because he is a slimeball who moved in Trump's sort of circles, and with whom it was plausible to believe Trump would cooperate, but Starmer has never been willing to actually say this.
If Starmer had come out and said "We knew the guy was a bit of a bounder, but he looked like the only guy we had who could really level with Trump. It's a pity he's turned out to be even more of a rotter than we expected, and we've sacked him immediately", I don't actually think it would have done Starmer much damage, and the media circus would have moved on quite quickly.
Instead, Starmer has spent months twisting and turning with "we did all the process right" answers, whilst the whole story was unravelling round him. It's made him look weak and untruthful. He's let the Tories skewer him with the humble address, from which lots of other fun and damaging revelations unrelated to Mandy have occurred (I doubt we've heard the last of Pat McFadden's quote about the PLP looking for people to tax to pay more benefits).
As always - it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover-up.
People elected or otherwise can express oppinions, they are just their own views,but Governments making statements are setting out the offical view and that makes it a diplomatic matter.
Peter.
For me it is straightforward - I agree with the Living Streets slogan "Pavements are for People", so I start from the idea that it is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle that such vehicles must be demonstrated to be acceptable as the first step.
And I'm very pleased that a significant organisation will be asking some hard questions.
I do like the phrase XYZ Nimbies, which I will add to my vocabulary.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3626ry101lo
Peter.
Equity for the inbred communities.
Talking of the other half:
https://x.com/Stan_And_Ollie/status/1239603967253983232?lang=en
15 years to think about the world and all he can manage is to imitate Farage.
In the absence of specific identified problems it would appear that the companies have behaved in a reasonable and responsible way and have been able to deal with any issues that have arisen. We shouldn't then punish them by forcing them to jump through extra hurdles.
I note, for example, that the robots run at 4mph - no more than a brisk walking pace. The main problem in sharing space (whether on a pavement or a road) is when people/vehicles move at very different speeds (e.g. a cyclist at ~10mph and a car at ~30mph). By choosing to run their robots at walking pace such problems are minimised. This isn't a limitation of the technology - Ukraine operates ground robots that are very nippy, in excess of 60 kph, for example.
What a bellend
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2062925357120946232?s=61
What a bellend
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2062925357120946232?s=61