One set all in the Wimbledon final, Jannick Sinner v. Alexander Zverev.
I know you spend much of your life on British trains and thus think that the populace is entirely cut off from anything resembling news, but the "Sunil News" channel is going to have to do some work to get really popular.
Sunil on Sunday.
Am I imagining things, but perhaps you used to make posts 'Sunil on Sunday' ? You definitely did do some railway travelogues which were first class. .
In case it doesn't bore you:
Track done for the first time:
January 2026
Bickley Jn to Petts Wood Jn via...
Zzzzzzzz
....Up through fast road at Darlington (avoiding station shed and new P5)
One set all in the Wimbledon final, Jannick Sinner v. Alexander Zverev.
I know you spend much of your life on British trains and thus think that the populace is entirely cut off from anything resembling news, but the "Sunil News" channel is going to have to do some work to get really popular.
Sunil on Sunday.
Am I imagining things, but perhaps you used to make posts 'Sunil on Sunday' ? You definitely did do some railway travelogues which were first class. .
In case it doesn't bore you:
Track done for the first time:
January 2026
Bickley Jn to Petts Wood Jn via Fast Tonbridge Loop (Southeastern weekend diversion)
Didcot West Curve Jn to Foxhall Jn (GWR weekend diversion - east to north done in 2024)
February
New loops at Cambridge South (station itself yet to open at that time) Northbound via P4 and southbound via P1 (weekdays 1000 to 1530)
Leigh-on-Sea platform 2 arrive/depart (available all day due to weekend engineering work)
March
Acton Town to Northfields (both ways) via outer ("local") tracks due to engineering works (service Acton to Heathrow only)
Barking bay P3 departure (arrival photos 2018) Dagenham East bay platform arrival/departure (arrival in dark 2018) (M-F peak hour reversals)
April
Bull Street to Millennium Point (West Midlands Metro) Millennium Point to Corporation St (also reprised Corporation St to Bull St both ways to account for new junction)
Retford P2 (high level) to Thrumpton West Jn (low level line), both ways. 1345 Worksop to Retford, 1414 from Retford.
May
Reading Spur Jn to Reading New Jn (westbound) CrossCountry engineering diversion Guildford to Reading
Connection to/from Grove Park P1 from/to the main line London Bridge to Bromley North direct service due to engineering elsewhere
June
Moorgate bay platform 3 (Hammersmith & City) Departure only, chance sight of train waiting there.
Minster station TO Minster South Jn Sunday engineering work (opposite direction done in 2017)
Tower Hill P2 westbound both ways (first definitive pics/note!) Eastbound done in 2025
Down through road at Darlington (avoiding station shed)
Glenrothes P2 to Thornton West Jn to Thornton North Jn (both ways) (Glenrothes P1 to Thornton West to South Jn done in 2019)
Larbert curve from Larbert to Falkirk (opposite direction done in 2019)
July
Kilmarnock to Troon (opposite direction done in 2018 and 2019)
Reprised East Kilbride branch to account for new two-track Hairmyres station, newly extended passing loop near there, and electrification
Carstairs north curve towards Edinburgh (towards Glasgow done in 2018)
Up through fast road at Darlington (avoiding station shed and new P5)
Doesn't bore me at all. Moorgate though! That's the big crash platform I think. What I was hoping for though was a return to your Betjaman-esque ramblings.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
If I’d done that you’d have a point
I didn’t
I compared it to people claiming that this years mid terms would be canned.
I don't believe many have suggested they won't happen.
The fear is there will be a military presence on the streets of Democratic cities, and voter suppression tactics will be employed. Trump wants the win and will claim the win. The fun starts if the Republican Party lose badly. They have said already that anything other than Republican House, Senate and Gubernatorial victories will be considered to be voter fraud.
The Widdecombe murder suddenly has got weird again.
A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden stick” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose. ... “He rarely comes out of the house, his dad used to do everything for him and I don’t know what he did for a living,” she said. “I think once his dad died he went a bit loopy.” ... Other neighbours said the suspect had lived in the property for at least a year and may have had learning difficulties. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/12/ann-widdecombe-murder-suspect-drove-dartmoor-alleged-murder/ (£££)
Mental health klaxon!
Also a politically motivated murder klaxon, for how else would he have known Ann but from her political views? 🙁
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
If I’d done that you’d have a point
I didn’t
I compared it to people claiming that this years mid terms would be canned.
I don't believe many have suggested they won't happen.
The fear is there will be a military presence on the streets of Democratic cities, and voter suppression tactics will be employed. Trump wants the win and will claim the win. The fun starts if the Republican Party lose badly. They have said already that anything other than Republican House, Senate and Gubernatorial victories will be considered to be voter fraud.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
The Widdecombe murder suddenly has got weird again.
A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden stick” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose. ... “He rarely comes out of the house, his dad used to do everything for him and I don’t know what he did for a living,” she said. “I think once his dad died he went a bit loopy.” ... Other neighbours said the suspect had lived in the property for at least a year and may have had learning difficulties. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/12/ann-widdecombe-murder-suspect-drove-dartmoor-alleged-murder/ (£££)
Mental health klaxon!
Also a politically motivated murder klaxon, for how else would he have known Ann but from her political views? 🙁
Maybe he got fixated on her dancing. (Sorry, not supposed to be speculation just the daftest alternative that occurred to me.)
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
only after his attempted uprising was nipped in the bud by his VP
The Widdecombe murder suddenly has got weird again.
A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden stick” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose. ... “He rarely comes out of the house, his dad used to do everything for him and I don’t know what he did for a living,” she said. “I think once his dad died he went a bit loopy.” ... Other neighbours said the suspect had lived in the property for at least a year and may have had learning difficulties. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/12/ann-widdecombe-murder-suspect-drove-dartmoor-alleged-murder/ (£££)
Mental health klaxon!
Also a politically motivated murder klaxon, for how else would he have known Ann but from her political views? 🙁
Many in Reform want to return Britain to an imagined 1950s, a far better time in their opinion, when there was peace and harmony and everyone got along merrily etc etc.
In the 1950s did senior politicians spend all day writing to the newspapers and making wireless comments demanding the police tell them every detail of an on-going inquiry before wildly speculating about motives and so forth?
I think not.
Grammar schools, elite universities, the workhouse, hanging, flogging and the return of pre-war diseases. Mind you, the last Government gave the return of Victorian diseases a good old go.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
The Foreign Office wants to continue with it. As Moonrabbit astutely observed (though she drew the in my opinion the wrong conclusion) the positive noises about Chagos came after his Foreign Office briefing. Moonrabbit thinks the conclusion is that the Foreign Office are good chaps who want to gracefully bow to the inevitable and help the politicians see that any other course is futile. I think the conclusion is that the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
Thank you Lucky. What we both agree, the idea behind Yes Minister was training manual for politicians, so not to be such suckers that’s used merely as auto pen for what their big office Mandarins want to do. Clearly Burnham is getting briefings, and is getting brainwashed into being that auto pen for Mandarins. Another good example why the WotN is just not up to job of being our PM.
Also, I’m not not saying FO are right on this, I’m not convinced either, but they likely do have some sort of argument, that makes it appear not quite so black and white, that’s not getting much of a hearing.
Getting under the hood why FO love this deal so much they can’t let go, would be interesting.
I think the Foreign Office firstly have always had a culture that is far to impressed with its own grandiosity with gilded halls and flourishes of fountain pens on global treaties, and far too little concerned with the national interest. You constantly hear of the Foreign office trying to block other departments because they are worrying about 'upsetting the Chinese' or even 'upsetting the Pakistanis' - to a completely disportionate degree.
Then I think it has far too close a relationship with the US State Department, who (certainly under the Democrats, but possibly at its 'deep state' core) seem in favour of this deal. They are not our friends.
Then I think it got even worse when it became the FDCO, because it inherited a large cadre of people from DFID who were totally ideologically captured and joined up with the sole intention of giving British money away to foreigners.
Jason Cowley says in todays Sunday Times that Ed Balls and David Miliband have wanted return to frontline uk politics for some time and were seeking seats before 2024 but Starmer's "team" blocked them.
The Widdecombe murder suddenly has got weird again.
A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden stick” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose. ... “He rarely comes out of the house, his dad used to do everything for him and I don’t know what he did for a living,” she said. “I think once his dad died he went a bit loopy.” ... Other neighbours said the suspect had lived in the property for at least a year and may have had learning difficulties. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/12/ann-widdecombe-murder-suspect-drove-dartmoor-alleged-murder/ (£££)
Mental health klaxon!
Also a politically motivated murder klaxon, for how else would he have known Ann but from her political views? 🙁
Maybe he's a Strictly fan?
That was my first guess – that Rotherham man had become obsessed with Widdecombe on telly – but it is 16 years since she was on Strictly, when he'd have been only 10.
It does amuse me when the closet PB MAGAs feel compelled to half stand up for Trump.
They would clearly love to do so more often and more openly.
How they must hate it that DJT is such a complete arse in every conceivable way.
The problem is that obvious BS like this distracts from his obvious faults.
Is there anything in particular that's prompted you to come out today in defence of Trump? You seem to be quite fired-up on his behalf this evening.
Yeah, that pathetic tweet by Biden jr and the n millionth repetition of all the same old bollocks about 2020/21 - fixation on which by the Democrats for the following four years is not the smallest reason why he won again and we're stuck with him for another term.
And, of course, the way you phrased that is part of the problem. Pointing out the Democrats' BS is neither defending Trump nor speaking on his behalf.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anything but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
It does amuse me when the closet PB MAGAs feel compelled to half stand up for Trump.
They would clearly love to do so more often and more openly.
How they must hate it that DJT is such a complete arse in every conceivable way.
The problem is that obvious BS like this distracts from his obvious faults.
Is there anything in particular that's prompted you to come out today in defence of Trump? You seem to be quite fired-up on his behalf this evening.
Yeah, that pathetic tweet by Biden and the n millionth repetition of all the same old bollocks about 2020/21 - fixation on which by the Democrats for the following four years is not the smallest reason why he won again and we're stuck with him for another term.
And, of course, the way you phrased that is part of the problem. Pointing out the Democrats' BS is neither defending Trump nor speaking on his behalf.
I honestly can't see what there is in Biden's tweet to object to. It seemed pretty well pitched to me.
One set all in the Wimbledon final, Jannick Sinner v. Alexander Zverev.
I know you spend much of your life on British trains and thus think that the populace is entirely cut off from anything resembling news, but the "Sunil News" channel is going to have to do some work to get really popular.
Sunil on Sunday.
Am I imagining things, but perhaps you used to make posts 'Sunil on Sunday' ? You definitely did do some railway travelogues which were first class. .
In case it doesn't bore you:
Track done for the first time:
January 2026
Bickley Jn to Petts Wood Jn via Fast Tonbridge Loop (Southeastern weekend diversion)
Didcot West Curve Jn to Foxhall Jn (GWR weekend diversion - east to north done in 2024)
February
New loops at Cambridge South (station itself yet to open at that time) Northbound via P4 and southbound via P1 (weekdays 1000 to 1530)
Leigh-on-Sea platform 2 arrive/depart (available all day due to weekend engineering work)
March
Acton Town to Northfields (both ways) via outer ("local") tracks due to engineering works (service Acton to Heathrow only)
Barking bay P3 departure (arrival photos 2018) Dagenham East bay platform arrival/departure (arrival in dark 2018) (M-F peak hour reversals)
April
Bull Street to Millennium Point (West Midlands Metro) Millennium Point to Corporation St (also reprised Corporation St to Bull St both ways to account for new junction)
Retford P2 (high level) to Thrumpton West Jn (low level line), both ways. 1345 Worksop to Retford, 1414 from Retford.
May
Reading Spur Jn to Reading New Jn (westbound) CrossCountry engineering diversion Guildford to Reading
Connection to/from Grove Park P1 from/to the main line London Bridge to Bromley North direct service due to engineering elsewhere
June
Moorgate bay platform 3 (Hammersmith & City) Departure only, chance sight of train waiting there.
Minster station TO Minster South Jn Sunday engineering work (opposite direction done in 2017)
Tower Hill P2 westbound both ways (first definitive pics/note!) Eastbound done in 2025
Down through road at Darlington (avoiding station shed)
Glenrothes P2 to Thornton West Jn to Thornton North Jn (both ways) (Glenrothes P1 to Thornton West to South Jn done in 2019)
Larbert curve from Larbert to Falkirk (opposite direction done in 2019)
July
Kilmarnock to Troon (opposite direction done in 2018 and 2019)
Reprised East Kilbride branch to account for new two-track Hairmyres station, newly extended passing loop near there, and electrification
Carstairs north curve towards Edinburgh (towards Glasgow done in 2018)
Up through fast road at Darlington (avoiding station shed and new P5)
Doesn't bore me at all. Moorgate though! That's the big crash platform I think. What I was hoping for though was a return to your Betjaman-esque ramblings.
No, no, no. The crash was in P9 or P10, the deep-level tube now used by Great Northern towards Hertford/Welwyn.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
If I’d done that you’d have a point
I didn’t
I compared it to people claiming that this years mid terms would be canned.
I don't believe many have suggested they won't happen.
The fear is there will be a military presence on the streets of Democratic cities, and voter suppression tactics will be employed. Trump wants the win and will claim the win. The fun starts if the Republican Party lose badly. They have said already that anything other than Republican House, Senate and Gubernatorial victories will be considered to be voter fraud.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
The Foreign Office wants to continue with it. As Moonrabbit astutely observed (though she drew the in my opinion the wrong conclusion) the positive noises about Chagos came after his Foreign Office briefing. Moonrabbit thinks the conclusion is that the Foreign Office are good chaps who want to gracefully bow to the inevitable and help the politicians see that any other course is futile. I think the conclusion is that the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
Thank you Lucky. What we both agree, the idea behind Yes Minister was training manual for politicians, so not to be such suckers that’s used merely as auto pen for what their big office Mandarins want to do. Clearly Burnham is getting briefings, and is getting brainwashed into being that auto pen for Mandarins. Another good example why the WotN is just not up to job of being our PM.
Also, I’m not not saying FO are right on this, I’m not convinced either, but they likely do have some sort of argument, that makes it appear not quite so black and white, that’s not getting much of a hearing.
Getting under the hood why FO love this deal so much they can’t let go, would be interesting.
The bit I’m confident is weak part of your understanding, that’s very key to this: Maritious in bed with China. Imo everyone saying “Maritious in bed with China” over and over have brainwashed themselves, believing something not true. Don’t take my word for it, or the AI slop out there, bit of proper research for yourself and it becomes clear that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. Mauritius fancy themselves as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody and those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line. So what else have you got that proves totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India? Trade deals not enough proof alone, after all UK have sexier trade deals with China - does it put us in bed with China?
Well. Okay. yes. There is that discussion under Blair, brown, Cam, Ossie, May, Boris, perhaps we did we get too far in bed with China on business, an we have been played on security.
Your conclusion that “the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.” Ties in with Barty in the post just before yours “There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.” I’m not saying either point are wrong. But why are FO are so in bed with this idea as sensible in their view.
Maybe the malign influence of India. India want Mauritius to legally have Chagos. Barty is right, they can’t force it legally, but they can apply other forms of strong pressure on UK, in the economic and security spheres we need in the region, that UK are not getting due to India’s influence. So the foreign office is working on a balance what is now worse for UK - accommodation with India and Mauritius legal right on Chagos for all that UK security and trade damage turned off, or keep the status quo, this comes with that trade and security damage for UK from India’s influence in the region, still switched on.
I havn’t sexed it up to be like something from “the great game” - it very much is from a Great Game. And the FO are the pro ballers in that game on behalf of the British People. Where deals with influential power brokers to further your trade and security, never come so black and white as this Chagos one is always being presented in UK media.
I would sell it to the USA and use some of the money to buy off the Chagossians, who have certainly been badly treated but won't be any better treated under any possible other outcome.
Yes, I think that is a very sensible post.
If Chagouns could now return to the islands, what would they do for employment, business, industry?
There is this sense our military top brass would like to do it your way - a sort of wash our hands and draw a UK line under what hasn’t been great for UK overall. When Trump killed this deal the Democrats would have signed - the media in the region went to town laughing and lampooning how weak the UK are over Chagos in that it’s not up to UK government but one desk in the White House - you tried giving away what you own but couldn’t when Trump said no, total US poodle.
But ownership passing from us to India, via lease to Mauritius 3rd party, was a get out for UK the FO - maybe our military top brass too though we don’t have a supporting citation, and the Biden White House, all thought was a good all round move for everyone - perhaps looking forward to how two new Super Powers are rising in the region, long term thinking in the way short term minds of politicians and media never do.
But no your deal is immposible unless the US want to buy. And they never have, currently don’t, and never will want to buy Chagos from us - why on earth would they when they have such generous “friends of the owners” benefits, without any ownership hassles or bills. In “county lines” drug trade, in which this “presence in the region” is virtually identical, I believe the term for what US is doing to us is called cuckooing. This cuckooing is exactly how the US envisaged their presence in the region back in the 40s and 50s. They have been very clever in The Great Game (modern version).
The Widdecombe murder suddenly has got weird again.
A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden stick” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose. ... “He rarely comes out of the house, his dad used to do everything for him and I don’t know what he did for a living,” she said. “I think once his dad died he went a bit loopy.” ... Other neighbours said the suspect had lived in the property for at least a year and may have had learning difficulties. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/12/ann-widdecombe-murder-suspect-drove-dartmoor-alleged-murder/ (£££)
Mental health klaxon!
Also a politically motivated murder klaxon, for how else would he have known Ann but from her political views? 🙁
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
One set all in the Wimbledon final, Jannick Sinner v. Alexander Zverev.
I know you spend much of your life on British trains and thus think that the populace is entirely cut off from anything resembling news, but the "Sunil News" channel is going to have to do some work to get really popular.
Sunil on Sunday.
Am I imagining things, but perhaps you used to make posts 'Sunil on Sunday' ? You definitely did do some railway travelogues which were first class. .
In case it doesn't bore you:
Track done for the first time:
January 2026
Bickley Jn to Petts Wood Jn via Fast Tonbridge Loop (Southeastern weekend diversion)
Didcot West Curve Jn to Foxhall Jn (GWR weekend diversion - east to north done in 2024)
February
New loops at Cambridge South (station itself yet to open at that time) Northbound via P4 and southbound via P1 (weekdays 1000 to 1530)
Leigh-on-Sea platform 2 arrive/depart (available all day due to weekend engineering work)
March
Acton Town to Northfields (both ways) via outer ("local") tracks due to engineering works (service Acton to Heathrow only)
Barking bay P3 departure (arrival photos 2018) Dagenham East bay platform arrival/departure (arrival in dark 2018) (M-F peak hour reversals)
April
Bull Street to Millennium Point (West Midlands Metro) Millennium Point to Corporation St (also reprised Corporation St to Bull St both ways to account for new junction)
Retford P2 (high level) to Thrumpton West Jn (low level line), both ways. 1345 Worksop to Retford, 1414 from Retford.
May
Reading Spur Jn to Reading New Jn (westbound) CrossCountry engineering diversion Guildford to Reading
Connection to/from Grove Park P1 from/to the main line London Bridge to Bromley North direct service due to engineering elsewhere
June
Moorgate bay platform 3 (Hammersmith & City) Departure only, chance sight of train waiting there.
Minster station TO Minster South Jn Sunday engineering work (opposite direction done in 2017)
Tower Hill P2 westbound both ways (first definitive pics/note!) Eastbound done in 2025
Down through road at Darlington (avoiding station shed)
Glenrothes P2 to Thornton West Jn to Thornton North Jn (both ways) (Glenrothes P1 to Thornton West to South Jn done in 2019)
Larbert curve from Larbert to Falkirk (opposite direction done in 2019)
July
Kilmarnock to Troon (opposite direction done in 2018 and 2019)
Reprised East Kilbride branch to account for new two-track Hairmyres station, newly extended passing loop near there, and electrification
Carstairs north curve towards Edinburgh (towards Glasgow done in 2018)
Up through fast road at Darlington (avoiding station shed and new P5)
Doesn't bore me at all. Moorgate though! That's the big crash platform I think. What I was hoping for though was a return to your Betjaman-esque ramblings.
No, no, no. The crash was in P9 or P10, the deep-level tube now used by Great Northern towards Hertford/Welwyn.
When I started working for Equitable Life in 1981 they were still talking about the Moorgate crash; most employees knew some of the victims.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
The Foreign Office wants to continue with it. As Moonrabbit astutely observed (though she drew the in my opinion the wrong conclusion) the positive noises about Chagos came after his Foreign Office briefing. Moonrabbit thinks the conclusion is that the Foreign Office are good chaps who want to gracefully bow to the inevitable and help the politicians see that any other course is futile. I think the conclusion is that the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
Thank you Lucky. What we both agree, the idea behind Yes Minister was training manual for politicians, so not to be such suckers that’s used merely as auto pen for what their big office Mandarins want to do. Clearly Burnham is getting briefings, and is getting brainwashed into being that auto pen for Mandarins. Another good example why the WotN is just not up to job of being our PM.
Also, I’m not not saying FO are right on this, I’m not convinced either, but they likely do have some sort of argument, that makes it appear not quite so black and white, that’s not getting much of a hearing.
Getting under the hood why FO love this deal so much they can’t let go, would be interesting.
The bit I’m confident is weak part of your understanding, that’s very key to this: Maritious in bed with China. Imo everyone saying “Maritious in bed with China” over and over have brainwashed themselves, believing something not true. Don’t take my word for it, or the AI slop out there, bit of proper research for yourself and it becomes clear that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. Mauritius fancy themselves as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody and those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line. So what else have you got that proves totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India? Trade deals not enough proof alone, after all UK have sexier trade deals with China - does it put us in bed with China?
Well. Okay. yes. There is that discussion under Blair, brown, Cam, Ossie, May, Boris, perhaps we did we get too far in bed with China on business, an we have been played on security.
Your conclusion that “the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.” Ties in with Barty in the post just before yours “There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.” I’m not saying either point are wrong. But why are FO are so in bed with this idea as sensible in their view.
Maybe the malign influence of India. India want Mauritius to legally have Chagos. Barty is right, they can’t force it legally, but they can apply other forms of strong pressure on UK, in the economic and security spheres we need in the region, that UK are not getting due to India’s influence. So the foreign office is working on a balance what is now worse for UK - accommodation with India and Mauritius legal right on Chagos for all that UK security and trade damage turned off, or keep the status quo, this comes with that trade and security damage for UK from India’s influence in the region, still switched on.
I havn’t sexed it up to be like something from “the great game” - it very much is from a Great Game. And the FO are the pro ballers in that game on behalf of the British People. Where deals with influential power brokers to further your trade and security, never come so black and white as this Chagos one is always being presented in UK media.
The big problem with giving Chagos to Mauritius is that it breaks Article 1(2) of the UN Charter.
No, that line the Tory front bench used in Parliament to hold things up a bit, collapsed earlier this year Driver, when legal boffins in UN said it’s not true.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
If I’d done that you’d have a point
I didn’t
I compared it to people claiming that this years mid terms would be canned.
I don't believe many have suggested they won't happen.
The fear is there will be a military presence on the streets of Democratic cities, and voter suppression tactics will be employed. Trump wants the win and will claim the win. The fun starts if the Republican Party lose badly. They have said already that anything other than Republican House, Senate and Gubernatorial victories will be considered to be voter fraud.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
The Foreign Office wants to continue with it. As Moonrabbit astutely observed (though she drew the in my opinion the wrong conclusion) the positive noises about Chagos came after his Foreign Office briefing. Moonrabbit thinks the conclusion is that the Foreign Office are good chaps who want to gracefully bow to the inevitable and help the politicians see that any other course is futile. I think the conclusion is that the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
Thank you Lucky. What we both agree, the idea behind Yes Minister was training manual for politicians, so not to be such suckers that’s used merely as auto pen for what their big office Mandarins want to do. Clearly Burnham is getting briefings, and is getting brainwashed into being that auto pen for Mandarins. Another good example why the WotN is just not up to job of being our PM.
Also, I’m not not saying FO are right on this, I’m not convinced either, but they likely do have some sort of argument, that makes it appear not quite so black and white, that’s not getting much of a hearing.
Getting under the hood why FO love this deal so much they can’t let go, would be interesting.
The bit I’m confident is weak part of your understanding, that’s very key to this: Maritious in bed with China. Imo everyone saying “Maritious in bed with China” over and over have brainwashed themselves, believing something not true. Don’t take my word for it, or the AI slop out there, bit of proper research for yourself and it becomes clear that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. Mauritius fancy themselves as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody and those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line. So what else have you got that proves totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India? Trade deals not enough proof alone, after all UK have sexier trade deals with China - does it put us in bed with China?
Well. Okay. yes. There is that discussion under Blair, brown, Cam, Ossie, May, Boris, perhaps we did we get too far in bed with China on business, an we have been played on security.
Your conclusion that “the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.” Ties in with Barty in the post just before yours “There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.” I’m not saying either point are wrong. But why are FO are so in bed with this idea as sensible in their view.
Maybe the malign influence of India. India want Mauritius to legally have Chagos. Barty is right, they can’t force it legally, but they can apply other forms of strong pressure on UK, in the economic and security spheres we need in the region, that UK are not getting due to India’s influence. So the foreign office is working on a balance what is now worse for UK - accommodation with India and Mauritius legal right on Chagos for all that UK security and trade damage turned off, or keep the status quo, this comes with that trade and security damage for UK from India’s influence in the region, still switched on.
I havn’t sexed it up to be like something from “the great game” - it very much is from a Great Game. And the FO are the pro ballers in that game on behalf of the British People. Where deals with influential power brokers to further your trade and security, never come so black and white as this Chagos one is always being presented in UK media.
The big problem with giving Chagos to Mauritius is that it breaks Article 1(2) of the UN Charter.
And I don't see why it is OK for Mauritius to be the colonial power, but not the UK.
It is not as if Mauritius is a former great nation which unjustly had its land and people taken away by European powers, it is itself a product of British and French colonialism.
And who are now in bed with the emerging Indian Super Power in the region. India love the idea, and have convinced the UN it’s legally doable.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
The Foreign Office wants to continue with it. As Moonrabbit astutely observed (though she drew the in my opinion the wrong conclusion) the positive noises about Chagos came after his Foreign Office briefing. Moonrabbit thinks the conclusion is that the Foreign Office are good chaps who want to gracefully bow to the inevitable and help the politicians see that any other course is futile. I think the conclusion is that the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
Thank you Lucky. What we both agree, the idea behind Yes Minister was training manual for politicians, so not to be such suckers that’s used merely as auto pen for what their big office Mandarins want to do. Clearly Burnham is getting briefings, and is getting brainwashed into being that auto pen for Mandarins. Another good example why the WotN is just not up to job of being our PM.
Also, I’m not not saying FO are right on this, I’m not convinced either, but they likely do have some sort of argument, that makes it appear not quite so black and white, that’s not getting much of a hearing.
Getting under the hood why FO love this deal so much they can’t let go, would be interesting.
The bit I’m confident is weak part of your understanding, that’s very key to this: Maritious in bed with China. Imo everyone saying “Maritious in bed with China” over and over have brainwashed themselves, believing something not true. Don’t take my word for it, or the AI slop out there, bit of proper research for yourself and it becomes clear that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. Mauritius fancy themselves as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody and those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line. So what else have you got that proves totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India? Trade deals not enough proof alone, after all UK have sexier trade deals with China - does it put us in bed with China?
Well. Okay. yes. There is that discussion under Blair, brown, Cam, Ossie, May, Boris, perhaps we did we get too far in bed with China on business, an we have been played on security.
Your conclusion that “the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.” Ties in with Barty in the post just before yours “There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.” I’m not saying either point are wrong. But why are FO are so in bed with this idea as sensible in their view.
Maybe the malign influence of India. India want Mauritius to legally have Chagos. Barty is right, they can’t force it legally, but they can apply other forms of strong pressure on UK, in the economic and security spheres we need in the region, that UK are not getting due to India’s influence. So the foreign office is working on a balance what is now worse for UK - accommodation with India and Mauritius legal right on Chagos for all that UK security and trade damage turned off, or keep the status quo, this comes with that trade and security damage for UK from India’s influence in the region, still switched on.
I havn’t sexed it up to be like something from “the great game” - it very much is from a Great Game. And the FO are the pro ballers in that game on behalf of the British People. Where deals with influential power brokers to further your trade and security, never come so black and white as this Chagos one is always being presented in UK media.
The big problem with giving Chagos to Mauritius is that it breaks Article 1(2) of the UN Charter.
No, that line the Tory front bench used in Parliament to hold things up a bit, collapsed earlier this year Driver, when legal boffins in UN said it’s not true.
"Legal boffins in the UN" can say what they want. This deal plainly infringes on the Chagossians' right to self-determination. Unless you think they don't have such a right.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
That said, it's probably true to an extent. Certainly Trump wants to change the rules in his favour as much as possible. That doesn't mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
It does amuse me when the closet PB MAGAs feel compelled to half stand up for Trump.
They would clearly love to do so more often and more openly.
How they must hate it that DJT is such a complete arse in every conceivable way.
The problem is that obvious BS like this distracts from his obvious faults.
Is there anything in particular that's prompted you to come out today in defence of Trump? You seem to be quite fired-up on his behalf this evening.
Yeah, that pathetic tweet by Biden jr and the n millionth repetition of all the same old bollocks about 2020/21 - fixation on which by the Democrats for the following four years is not the smallest reason why he won again and we're stuck with him for another term.
And, of course, the way you phrased that is part of the problem. Pointing out the Democrats' BS is neither defending Trump nor speaking on his behalf.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
The Foreign Office wants to continue with it. As Moonrabbit astutely observed (though she drew the in my opinion the wrong conclusion) the positive noises about Chagos came after his Foreign Office briefing. Moonrabbit thinks the conclusion is that the Foreign Office are good chaps who want to gracefully bow to the inevitable and help the politicians see that any other course is futile. I think the conclusion is that the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
Thank you Lucky. What we both agree, the idea behind Yes Minister was training manual for politicians, so not to be such suckers that’s used merely as auto pen for what their big office Mandarins want to do. Clearly Burnham is getting briefings, and is getting brainwashed into being that auto pen for Mandarins. Another good example why the WotN is just not up to job of being our PM.
Also, I’m not not saying FO are right on this, I’m not convinced either, but they likely do have some sort of argument, that makes it appear not quite so black and white, that’s not getting much of a hearing.
Getting under the hood why FO love this deal so much they can’t let go, would be interesting.
The bit I’m confident is weak part of your understanding, that’s very key to this: Maritious in bed with China. Imo everyone saying “Maritious in bed with China” over and over have brainwashed themselves, believing something not true. Don’t take my word for it, or the AI slop out there, bit of proper research for yourself and it becomes clear that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. Mauritius fancy themselves as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody and those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line. So what else have you got that proves totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India? Trade deals not enough proof alone, after all UK have sexier trade deals with China - does it put us in bed with China?
Well. Okay. yes. There is that discussion under Blair, brown, Cam, Ossie, May, Boris, perhaps we did we get too far in bed with China on business, an we have been played on security.
Your conclusion that “the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.” Ties in with Barty in the post just before yours “There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.” I’m not saying either point are wrong. But why are FO are so in bed with this idea as sensible in their view.
Maybe the malign influence of India. India want Mauritius to legally have Chagos. Barty is right, they can’t force it legally, but they can apply other forms of strong pressure on UK, in the economic and security spheres we need in the region, that UK are not getting due to India’s influence. So the foreign office is working on a balance what is now worse for UK - accommodation with India and Mauritius legal right on Chagos for all that UK security and trade damage turned off, or keep the status quo, this comes with that trade and security damage for UK from India’s influence in the region, still switched on.
I havn’t sexed it up to be like something from “the great game” - it very much is from a Great Game. And the FO are the pro ballers in that game on behalf of the British People. Where deals with influential power brokers to further your trade and security, never come so black and white as this Chagos one is always being presented in UK media.
I would sell it to the USA and use some of the money to buy off the Chagossians, who have certainly been badly treated but won't be any better treated under any possible other outcome.
Yes, I think that is a very sensible post.
If Chagouns could now return to the islands, what would they do for employment, business, industry?
There is this sense our military top brass would like to do it your way - a sort of wash our hands and draw a UK line under what hasn’t been great for UK overall. When Trump killed this deal the Democrats would have signed - the media in the region went to town laughing and lampooning how weak the UK are over Chagos in that it’s not up to UK government but one desk in the White House - you tried giving away what you own but couldn’t when Trump said no, total US poodle.
But ownership passing from us to India, via lease to Mauritius 3rd party, was a get out for UK the FO - maybe our military top brass too though we don’t have a supporting citation, and the Biden White House, all thought was a good all round move for everyone - perhaps looking forward to how two new Super Powers are rising in the region, long term thinking in the way short term minds of politicians and media never do.
But no your deal is immposible unless the US want to buy. And they never have, currently don’t, and never will want to buy Chagos from us - why on earth would they when they have such generous “friends of the owners” benefits, without any ownership hassles or bills. In “county lines” drug trade, in which this “presence in the region” is virtually identical, I believe the term for what US is doing to us is called cuckooing. This cuckooing is exactly how the US envisaged their presence in the region back in the 40s and 50s. They have been very clever in The Great Game (modern version).
I also have some sympathy with John Lilburne's solution. We do not need a base there, and while I'm optimistic about our global future (genuinely), we won't need it for some time. The US does need it, so let them get on with it and bloody pay some money for it. If anything, I would rather the US be responsible for whatever they get up to there, rather than us as the reluctant landlord.
The issue with the Chagos deal is us hiring the base for the US, for tens of billions, from the Mauritians. Um, no. Just no. It is feckless, dickless, foreign policy on a galactic scale.
When a high profile political figure is murdered in their own home, in rural England, at lunchtime on a Wednesday, it is entirely natural and reasonable to wonder why. Of course people are going to speculate about motive!
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
If I’d done that you’d have a point
I didn’t
I compared it to people claiming that this years mid terms would be canned.
I don't believe many have suggested they won't happen.
The fear is there will be a military presence on the streets of Democratic cities, and voter suppression tactics will be employed. Trump wants the win and will claim the win. The fun starts if the Republican Party lose badly. They have said already that anything other than Republican House, Senate and Gubernatorial victories will be considered to be voter fraud.
It does amuse me when the closet PB MAGAs feel compelled to half stand up for Trump.
They would clearly love to do so more often and more openly.
How they must hate it that DJT is such a complete arse in every conceivable way.
The problem is that obvious BS like this distracts from his obvious faults.
Is there anything in particular that's prompted you to come out today in defence of Trump? You seem to be quite fired-up on his behalf this evening.
Yeah, that pathetic tweet by Biden jr and the n millionth repetition of all the same old bollocks about 2020/21 - fixation on which by the Democrats for the following four years is not the smallest reason why he won again and we're stuck with him for another term.
And, of course, the way you phrased that is part of the problem. Pointing out the Democrats' BS is neither defending Trump nor speaking on his behalf.
ah yes, everything is always the left's fault
The Democrats' mishandling of the Biden presidency might not have been sufficient for a Trump re-election, but it was certainly necessary.
As ever with the Swiss cheese model, you need to focus on the layers that could have been expected to work better.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
I have not listened yet; a 1hr Lewis NIcholls ("Life Stories") interview with Anne Widdecombe, from a year ago:
The Lewis Nicholls Show
"In This episode of Life Stories Ann talks about her career in politics, her opinion on former prime ministers, she also responds to allegations of racism and homophobia. Ann takes a look into her television career from Strictly to Celebrity Big Brother."
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
That said, it's probably true to an extent. Certainly Trump wants to change the rules in his favour as much as possible. That doesn't mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
You don't watch the Dem YouTubers I watch then. I just think 1/6/20 tells you all you need to know.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
If I’d done that you’d have a point
I didn’t
I compared it to people claiming that this years mid terms would be canned.
I don't believe many have suggested they won't happen.
The fear is there will be a military presence on the streets of Democratic cities, and voter suppression tactics will be employed. Trump wants the win and will claim the win. The fun starts if the Republican Party lose badly. They have said already that anything other than Republican House, Senate and Gubernatorial victories will be considered to be voter fraud.
It does amuse me when the closet PB MAGAs feel compelled to half stand up for Trump.
They would clearly love to do so more often and more openly.
How they must hate it that DJT is such a complete arse in every conceivable way.
The problem is that obvious BS like this distracts from his obvious faults.
Is there anything in particular that's prompted you to come out today in defence of Trump? You seem to be quite fired-up on his behalf this evening.
Yeah, that pathetic tweet by Biden and the n millionth repetition of all the same old bollocks about 2020/21 - fixation on which by the Democrats for the following four years is not the smallest reason why he won again and we're stuck with him for another term.
And, of course, the way you phrased that is part of the problem. Pointing out the Democrats' BS is neither defending Trump nor speaking on his behalf.
I honestly can't see what there is in Biden's tweet to object to. It seemed pretty well pitched to me.
I find it quite extraordinary that we are quoting a scumbag like Hunter Biden at all. His rehabilitation is bizarre and totally undermines any claim to the moral high ground that the Democrats want to make.
It does amuse me when the closet PB MAGAs feel compelled to half stand up for Trump.
They would clearly love to do so more often and more openly.
How they must hate it that DJT is such a complete arse in every conceivable way.
The problem is that obvious BS like this distracts from his obvious faults.
Is there anything in particular that's prompted you to come out today in defence of Trump? You seem to be quite fired-up on his behalf this evening.
Yeah, that pathetic tweet by Biden jr and the n millionth repetition of all the same old bollocks about 2020/21 - fixation on which by the Democrats for the following four years is not the smallest reason why he won again and we're stuck with him for another term.
And, of course, the way you phrased that is part of the problem. Pointing out the Democrats' BS is neither defending Trump nor speaking on his behalf.
ah yes, everything is always the left's fault
The Democrats' mishandling of the Biden presidency might not have been sufficient for a Trump re-election, but it was certainly necessary.
As ever with the Swiss cheese model, you need to focus on the layers that could have been expected to work better.
you need to focus on the layers that start with the republicans and fellow travellers telling orange to gtfo
Trump fired the remaining Democrats on the Election Commission . One can only imagine the furore if Biden did this to the GOP members whilst he was in office .
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
"Democracy experts say there is little doubt about president’s desire to interfere in elections this November".
Indeed. But desire is not ability - nor does it mean that mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
It does amuse me when the closet PB MAGAs feel compelled to half stand up for Trump.
They would clearly love to do so more often and more openly.
How they must hate it that DJT is such a complete arse in every conceivable way.
The problem is that obvious BS like this distracts from his obvious faults.
Is there anything in particular that's prompted you to come out today in defence of Trump? You seem to be quite fired-up on his behalf this evening.
Yeah, that pathetic tweet by Biden and the n millionth repetition of all the same old bollocks about 2020/21 - fixation on which by the Democrats for the following four years is not the smallest reason why he won again and we're stuck with him for another term.
And, of course, the way you phrased that is part of the problem. Pointing out the Democrats' BS is neither defending Trump nor speaking on his behalf.
I honestly can't see what there is in Biden's tweet to object to. It seemed pretty well pitched to me.
I find it quite extraordinary that we are quoting a scumbag like Hunter Biden at all. His rehabilitation is bizarre and totally undermines any claim to the moral high ground that the Democrats want to make.
is he the type of scumbag that molests teenage contestants at beauty pageants?
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
If I’d done that you’d have a point
I didn’t
I compared it to people claiming that this years mid terms would be canned.
I don't believe many have suggested they won't happen.
The fear is there will be a military presence on the streets of Democratic cities, and voter suppression tactics will be employed. Trump wants the win and will claim the win. The fun starts if the Republican Party lose badly. They have said already that anything other than Republican House, Senate and Gubernatorial victories will be considered to be voter fraud.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
That said, it's probably true to an extent. Certainly Trump wants to change the rules in his favour as much as possible. That doesn't mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
You don't watch the Dem YouTubers I watch then. I just think 1/6/20 tells you all you need to know.
No, I probably don't, but I'm sure they're wrapped up in self righteousness.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
That said, it's probably true to an extent. Certainly Trump wants to change the rules in his favour as much as possible. That doesn't mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
You don't watch the Dem YouTubers I watch then. I just think 1/6/20 tells you all you need to know.
It does amuse me when the closet PB MAGAs feel compelled to half stand up for Trump.
They would clearly love to do so more often and more openly.
How they must hate it that DJT is such a complete arse in every conceivable way.
The problem is that obvious BS like this distracts from his obvious faults.
Is there anything in particular that's prompted you to come out today in defence of Trump? You seem to be quite fired-up on his behalf this evening.
Yeah, that pathetic tweet by Biden and the n millionth repetition of all the same old bollocks about 2020/21 - fixation on which by the Democrats for the following four years is not the smallest reason why he won again and we're stuck with him for another term.
And, of course, the way you phrased that is part of the problem. Pointing out the Democrats' BS is neither defending Trump nor speaking on his behalf.
I honestly can't see what there is in Biden's tweet to object to. It seemed pretty well pitched to me.
I find it quite extraordinary that we are quoting a scumbag like Hunter Biden at all. His rehabilitation is bizarre and totally undermines any claim to the moral high ground that the Democrats want to make.
I have some sympathy with that view tbf. But the tweet itself is inoffensive. Generous even. And I cling to the view that every ne'er-do-well should have the chance to reform.
It does amuse me when the closet PB MAGAs feel compelled to half stand up for Trump.
They would clearly love to do so more often and more openly.
How they must hate it that DJT is such a complete arse in every conceivable way.
The problem is that obvious BS like this distracts from his obvious faults.
Is there anything in particular that's prompted you to come out today in defence of Trump? You seem to be quite fired-up on his behalf this evening.
Yeah, that pathetic tweet by Biden and the n millionth repetition of all the same old bollocks about 2020/21 - fixation on which by the Democrats for the following four years is not the smallest reason why he won again and we're stuck with him for another term.
And, of course, the way you phrased that is part of the problem. Pointing out the Democrats' BS is neither defending Trump nor speaking on his behalf.
I honestly can't see what there is in Biden's tweet to object to. It seemed pretty well pitched to me.
I find it quite extraordinary that we are quoting a scumbag like Hunter Biden at all. His rehabilitation is bizarre and totally undermines any claim to the moral high ground that the Democrats want to make.
is he the type of scumbag that molests teenage contestants at beauty pageants?
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
That said, it's probably true to an extent. Certainly Trump wants to change the rules in his favour as much as possible. That doesn't mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
You don't watch the Dem YouTubers I watch then. I just think 1/6/20 tells you all you need to know.
No, I probably don't, but I'm sure they're wrapped up in self righteousness.
Quite a few are former Republicans like Rick Wilson and George Conway.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
That said, it's probably true to an extent. Certainly Trump wants to change the rules in his favour as much as possible. That doesn't mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
You don't watch the Dem YouTubers I watch then. I just think 1/6/20 tells you all you need to know.
No, I probably don't, but I'm sure they're wrapped up in self righteousness.
Please remind us when a Dem President caused a riot and tried to steal an election ? Your desperate attempts at trying to sane wash Trumps actions are becoming embarrassing.
It does amuse me when the closet PB MAGAs feel compelled to half stand up for Trump.
They would clearly love to do so more often and more openly.
How they must hate it that DJT is such a complete arse in every conceivable way.
The problem is that obvious BS like this distracts from his obvious faults.
Is there anything in particular that's prompted you to come out today in defence of Trump? You seem to be quite fired-up on his behalf this evening.
Yeah, that pathetic tweet by Biden and the n millionth repetition of all the same old bollocks about 2020/21 - fixation on which by the Democrats for the following four years is not the smallest reason why he won again and we're stuck with him for another term.
And, of course, the way you phrased that is part of the problem. Pointing out the Democrats' BS is neither defending Trump nor speaking on his behalf.
I honestly can't see what there is in Biden's tweet to object to. It seemed pretty well pitched to me.
I find it quite extraordinary that we are quoting a scumbag like Hunter Biden at all. His rehabilitation is bizarre and totally undermines any claim to the moral high ground that the Democrats want to make.
is he the type of scumbag that molests teenage contestants at beauty pageants?
If given the chance, absolutely.
I think you go too far there Lucky. Any evidence of HB behaving that way?
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
It may come as a surprise to some people but acting according to the law is a thing for both practical and moral reasons.
The Chagos complication for the UK is that Trump has no time for the law and so doing what the US wants, which is ultimately what all UK governments aim to do, becomes very hazy.
Also Chagos is an American base, not a UK one beyond the tiniest fig leaf, and one they will never give up in any circumstances. What the UK wants is nearly irrelevant.
There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.
There won't be world policeman chasing you for punishment no. But it doesn't mean ignoring judgements against you are necessarily consequence free. Similar to breaking treaties actually of which the UK has a relevant one with Mauritius.
There's some mad idea on this board that UK governments are willfully paying foreign governments because they are irrational and weak minded, when it should be obvious the whole Chagos thing is an embarrassment to them and they are only going along with it with extreme reluctance because they don't think have a choice. Or rather the choice is either to settle with Mauritius or play for time, where playing for time just delays the inevitable.
The reason why UK governments have been going along with it, at least until Trump came along, is because US governments have told their UK counterparts/effective vassals in no uncertain terms to settle with Mauritius, to the extent of referring the UK to tribunals who then ruled against it. USG are telling the UKG to do this is because Diego Garcia is a strategic asset for them and they want to sort out the legals.
Trump is causing trouble of course. On the one hand US policy on Diego Garcia hasn't changed, on the other he sees an opportunity to get at Starmer on what he sees as a weakness, an opportunity he won't let pass. I think UKG could actually say, we're washing our hands of the whole thing, you sort it out with Mauritius. For whatever reason it seems UKG isn't going down that route.
Ignoring advisory judgements is entirely consequence-free.
Unless you can name an actual consequence for disregarding an advisory judgement.
One set all in the Wimbledon final, Jannick Sinner v. Alexander Zverev.
I know you spend much of your life on British trains and thus think that the populace is entirely cut off from anything resembling news, but the "Sunil News" channel is going to have to do some work to get really popular.
Sunil on Sunday.
Am I imagining things, but perhaps you used to make posts 'Sunil on Sunday' ? You definitely did do some railway travelogues which were first class. .
In case it doesn't bore you:
Track done for the first time:
January 2026
Bickley Jn to Petts Wood Jn via Fast Tonbridge Loop (Southeastern weekend diversion)
Didcot West Curve Jn to Foxhall Jn (GWR weekend diversion - east to north done in 2024)
February
New loops at Cambridge South (station itself yet to open at that time) Northbound via P4 and southbound via P1 (weekdays 1000 to 1530)
Leigh-on-Sea platform 2 arrive/depart (available all day due to weekend engineering work)
March
Acton Town to Northfields (both ways) via outer ("local") tracks due to engineering works (service Acton to Heathrow only)
Barking bay P3 departure (arrival photos 2018) Dagenham East bay platform arrival/departure (arrival in dark 2018) (M-F peak hour reversals)
April
Bull Street to Millennium Point (West Midlands Metro) Millennium Point to Corporation St (also reprised Corporation St to Bull St both ways to account for new junction)
Retford P2 (high level) to Thrumpton West Jn (low level line), both ways. 1345 Worksop to Retford, 1414 from Retford.
May
Reading Spur Jn to Reading New Jn (westbound) CrossCountry engineering diversion Guildford to Reading
Connection to/from Grove Park P1 from/to the main line London Bridge to Bromley North direct service due to engineering elsewhere
June
Moorgate bay platform 3 (Hammersmith & City) Departure only, chance sight of train waiting there.
Minster station TO Minster South Jn Sunday engineering work (opposite direction done in 2017)
Tower Hill P2 westbound both ways (first definitive pics/note!) Eastbound done in 2025
Down through road at Darlington (avoiding station shed)
Glenrothes P2 to Thornton West Jn to Thornton North Jn (both ways) (Glenrothes P1 to Thornton West to South Jn done in 2019)
Larbert curve from Larbert to Falkirk (opposite direction done in 2019)
July
Kilmarnock to Troon (opposite direction done in 2018 and 2019)
Reprised East Kilbride branch to account for new two-track Hairmyres station, newly extended passing loop near there, and electrification
Carstairs north curve towards Edinburgh (towards Glasgow done in 2018)
Up through fast road at Darlington (avoiding station shed and new P5)
I envisaged your end like the final scene from Collateral - but the LNER version
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
That said, it's probably true to an extent. Certainly Trump wants to change the rules in his favour as much as possible. That doesn't mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
You don't watch the Dem YouTubers I watch then. I just think 1/6/20 tells you all you need to know.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
That said, it's probably true to an extent. Certainly Trump wants to change the rules in his favour as much as possible. That doesn't mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
You don't watch the Dem YouTubers I watch then. I just think 1/6/20 tells you all you need to know.
6 Jan 2021 I think.
It's something I try to forget. Maybe this time Trump will get the sedition in a year early.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
That said, it's probably true to an extent. Certainly Trump wants to change the rules in his favour as much as possible. That doesn't mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
You don't watch the Dem YouTubers I watch then. I just think 1/6/20 tells you all you need to know.
No, I probably don't, but I'm sure they're wrapped up in self righteousness.
Please remind us when a Dem President caused a riot and tried to steal an election ? Your desperate attempts at trying to sane wash Trumps actions are becoming embarrassing.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
The Foreign Office wants to continue with it. As Moonrabbit astutely observed (though she drew the in my opinion the wrong conclusion) the positive noises about Chagos came after his Foreign Office briefing. Moonrabbit thinks the conclusion is that the Foreign Office are good chaps who want to gracefully bow to the inevitable and help the politicians see that any other course is futile. I think the conclusion is that the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
Thank you Lucky. What we both agree, the idea behind Yes Minister was training manual for politicians, so not to be such suckers that’s used merely as auto pen for what their big office Mandarins want to do. Clearly Burnham is getting briefings, and is getting brainwashed into being that auto pen for Mandarins. Another good example why the WotN is just not up to job of being our PM.
Also, I’m not not saying FO are right on this, I’m not convinced either, but they likely do have some sort of argument, that makes it appear not quite so black and white, that’s not getting much of a hearing.
Getting under the hood why FO love this deal so much they can’t let go, would be interesting.
The bit I’m confident is weak part of your understanding, that’s very key to this: Maritious in bed with China. Imo everyone saying “Maritious in bed with China” over and over have brainwashed themselves, believing something not true. Don’t take my word for it, or the AI slop out there, bit of proper research for yourself and it becomes clear that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. Mauritius fancy themselves as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody and those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line. So what else have you got that proves totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India? Trade deals not enough proof alone, after all UK have sexier trade deals with China - does it put us in bed with China?
Well. Okay. yes. There is that discussion under Blair, brown, Cam, Ossie, May, Boris, perhaps we did we get too far in bed with China on business, an we have been played on security.
Your conclusion that “the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.” Ties in with Barty in the post just before yours “There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.” I’m not saying either point are wrong. But why are FO are so in bed with this idea as sensible in their view.
Maybe the malign influence of India. India want Mauritius to legally have Chagos. Barty is right, they can’t force it legally, but they can apply other forms of strong pressure on UK, in the economic and security spheres we need in the region, that UK are not getting due to India’s influence. So the foreign office is working on a balance what is now worse for UK - accommodation with India and Mauritius legal right on Chagos for all that UK security and trade damage turned off, or keep the status quo, this comes with that trade and security damage for UK from India’s influence in the region, still switched on.
I havn’t sexed it up to be like something from “the great game” - it very much is from a Great Game. And the FO are the pro ballers in that game on behalf of the British People. Where deals with influential power brokers to further your trade and security, never come so black and white as this Chagos one is always being presented in UK media.
I would sell it to the USA and use some of the money to buy off the Chagossians, who have certainly been badly treated but won't be any better treated under any possible other outcome.
Yes, I think that is a very sensible post.
If Chagouns could now return to the islands, what would they do for employment, business, industry?
There is this sense our military top brass would like to do it your way - a sort of wash our hands and draw a UK line under what hasn’t been great for UK overall. When Trump killed this deal the Democrats would have signed - the media in the region went to town laughing and lampooning how weak the UK are over Chagos in that it’s not up to UK government but one desk in the White House - you tried giving away what you own but couldn’t when Trump said no, total US poodle.
But ownership passing from us to India, via lease to Mauritius 3rd party, was a get out for UK the FO - maybe our military top brass too though we don’t have a supporting citation, and the Biden White House, all thought was a good all round move for everyone - perhaps looking forward to how two new Super Powers are rising in the region, long term thinking in the way short term minds of politicians and media never do.
But no your deal is immposible unless the US want to buy. And they never have, currently don’t, and never will want to buy Chagos from us - why on earth would they when they have such generous “friends of the owners” benefits, without any ownership hassles or bills. In “county lines” drug trade, in which this “presence in the region” is virtually identical, I believe the term for what US is doing to us is called cuckooing. This cuckooing is exactly how the US envisaged their presence in the region back in the 40s and 50s. They have been very clever in The Great Game (modern version).
I also have some sympathy with John Lilburne's solution. We do not need a base there, and while I'm optimistic about our global future (genuinely), we won't need it for some time. The US does need it, so let them get on with it and bloody pay some money for it. If anything, I would rather the US be responsible for whatever they get up to there, rather than us as the reluctant landlord.
The issue with the Chagos deal is us hiring the base for the US, for tens of billions, from the Mauritians. Um, no. Just no. It is feckless, dickless, foreign policy on a galactic scale.
You can understand long term deep state thinking in Pentagon wanting to ditch UK and pitch in with India going forward? Things have moved on a bit in that region since the British Empire’s days in India. And looking ahead, India seas the ocean named after it as its own manor, whilst it’s also key to China shipping goods through it. Sorry if that’s pitching it like a London gangster film… but it sort of is really, on its most basic level.
It is true, isn’t it, that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. As well as Mauritius fancy their future as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody but those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line till this point.
So what else have you got that proves Mauritius totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India?
The very first part of this Chagos ideal was a PowerPoint demonstration, written by the Indian Government, pitched by Mauritius government to the US in a meeting, then on the fringes of a world leaders summit Liz Truss was told the White House want UK to explore it, Liz office in number 10 then wrote a memo to the Foreign Sec: have a look into this idea will you please.
I think you go too far there Lucky. Any evidence of HB behaving that way?
Allegations regarding Hunter Biden’s interactions with women and use of sex workers primarily stem from financial records, text messages, and images recovered from a laptop he abandoned in 2019, as well as testimony from his divorce proceedings and federal investigations.
Allegations of Prostitution and Sex Clubs Financial documents and whistleblower testimony indicate that Hunter Biden frequently paid for sex workers and visited adult entertainment venues between 2016 and 2019.
Financial Expenditures: Bank records and Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) suggest Biden spent approximately $188,000 on adult entertainment and nearly $683,000 on "relationships with various women" during this period. Specific transactions include an $11,500 payment for a two-night escort service in 2018 and a $1,500 Venmo transfer to an exotic dancer disguised as an "artwork" purchase.
Mann Act Concerns: Text messages and travel records obtained from the laptop allege that Biden transported women across state lines for sexual encounters, potentially violating the Mann Act. One instance describes him booking Amtrak tickets for three women to travel from Boston to New York for a sexual encounter in a hotel suite.
Tax Fraud Allegations: During the investigation into Biden’s taxes, IRS whistleblowers testified that he attempted to deduct these expenses as business costs. Allegations include writing off payments to a "West Coast assistant" who was allegedly a prostitute and deducting an $18,000 wire transfer to a sex club as a "golf membership" deposit.
Divorce and Infidelity Biden’s first wife, Kathleen Buhle, detailed extensive infidelity and financial misconduct in their 2017 divorce filings.
Specific Accusations: In court documents, Buhle accused Biden of squandering family funds on "drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs, and gifts for women with whom he has sexual relations."
Admissions: Biden reportedly admitted to Buhle that he had cheated on her five times, claiming the encounters were with prostitutes while he was drinking. Affair with Hallie Biden: The marriage ultimately ended following the revelation of an affair between Hunter and Hallie Biden, the widow of his late brother Beau. Emails show Kathleen confronting Hunter about the affair, citing evidence of jewelry and travel purchases for Hallie.
Explicit Content and Legal Actions The laptop also contained numerous explicit images and videos of Biden, some of which became the subject of legal disputes.
Non-Consensual Distribution: In July 2024, Biden filed a lawsuit against Fox News under New York’s "revenge porn" laws. The suit alleged that the network unlawfully broadcast explicit images of him engaged in sex acts as part of a streaming series, causing humiliation and reputational damage.
Unverified Claims: While various explicit materials have circulated online, including allegations of involvement with minors, law enforcement and fact-checkers have found no evidence to support claims of child pornography or illegal acts involving minors on the laptop. These specific claims are widely regarded as disinformation.
In 2020/21 Trump pulled every lever available to him, some entirely legitimate, some not so - and when he ran out of levers he left office.
I give some credit for the last point. Those who don't, I assume, fear that this time he will try to use entirely illegitimate levers and will succeed. And this could be true but I don't think we have any actual evidence for it. He hasn't even, as far as I know, gone against any of the various SCOTUS rulings against him.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Far too subtle for this lay person. He still thinks it bollocks.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
That said, it's probably true to an extent. Certainly Trump wants to change the rules in his favour as much as possible. That doesn't mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
You don't watch the Dem YouTubers I watch then. I just think 1/6/20 tells you all you need to know.
No, I probably don't, but I'm sure they're wrapped up in self righteousness.
Please remind us when a Dem President caused a riot and tried to steal an election ? Your desperate attempts at trying to sane wash Trumps actions are becoming embarrassing.
You are assuming what you want to prove.
Facts are facts are facts.
I may be wrong about everything else political; Brexit was a disaster, Johnson was a terrible Prime Minister and Truss and Kwarteng's budget wasn't the most Conservative budget since 1986 may all be incorrect, but I am on the money regarding Trump.
One set all in the Wimbledon final, Jannick Sinner v. Alexander Zverev.
I know you spend much of your life on British trains and thus think that the populace is entirely cut off from anything resembling news, but the "Sunil News" channel is going to have to do some work to get really popular.
Sunil on Sunday.
Am I imagining things, but perhaps you used to make posts 'Sunil on Sunday' ? You definitely did do some railway travelogues which were first class. .
In case it doesn't bore you:
Track done for the first time:
January 2026
Bickley Jn to Petts Wood Jn via Fast Tonbridge Loop (Southeastern weekend diversion)
Didcot West Curve Jn to Foxhall Jn (GWR weekend diversion - east to north done in 2024)
February
New loops at Cambridge South (station itself yet to open at that time) Northbound via P4 and southbound via P1 (weekdays 1000 to 1530)
Leigh-on-Sea platform 2 arrive/depart (available all day due to weekend engineering work)
March
Acton Town to Northfields (both ways) via outer ("local") tracks due to engineering works (service Acton to Heathrow only)
Barking bay P3 departure (arrival photos 2018) Dagenham East bay platform arrival/departure (arrival in dark 2018) (M-F peak hour reversals)
April
Bull Street to Millennium Point (West Midlands Metro) Millennium Point to Corporation St (also reprised Corporation St to Bull St both ways to account for new junction)
Retford P2 (high level) to Thrumpton West Jn (low level line), both ways. 1345 Worksop to Retford, 1414 from Retford.
May
Reading Spur Jn to Reading New Jn (westbound) CrossCountry engineering diversion Guildford to Reading
Connection to/from Grove Park P1 from/to the main line London Bridge to Bromley North direct service due to engineering elsewhere
June
Moorgate bay platform 3 (Hammersmith & City) Departure only, chance sight of train waiting there.
Minster station TO Minster South Jn Sunday engineering work (opposite direction done in 2017)
Tower Hill P2 westbound both ways (first definitive pics/note!) Eastbound done in 2025
Down through road at Darlington (avoiding station shed)
Glenrothes P2 to Thornton West Jn to Thornton North Jn (both ways) (Glenrothes P1 to Thornton West to South Jn done in 2019)
Larbert curve from Larbert to Falkirk (opposite direction done in 2019)
July
Kilmarnock to Troon (opposite direction done in 2018 and 2019)
Reprised East Kilbride branch to account for new two-track Hairmyres station, newly extended passing loop near there, and electrification
Carstairs north curve towards Edinburgh (towards Glasgow done in 2018)
Up through fast road at Darlington (avoiding station shed and new P5)
I envisaged your end like the final scene from Collateral - but the LNER version
In 2020/21 Trump pulled every lever available to him, some entirely legitimate, some not so - and when he ran out of levers he left office.
I give some credit for the last point. Those who don't, I assume, fear that this time he will try to use entirely illegitimate levers and will succeed. And this could be true but I don't think we have any actual evidence for it. He hasn't even, as far as I know, gone against any of the various SCOTUS rulings against him.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
The Foreign Office wants to continue with it. As Moonrabbit astutely observed (though she drew the in my opinion the wrong conclusion) the positive noises about Chagos came after his Foreign Office briefing. Moonrabbit thinks the conclusion is that the Foreign Office are good chaps who want to gracefully bow to the inevitable and help the politicians see that any other course is futile. I think the conclusion is that the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
Thank you Lucky. What we both agree, the idea behind Yes Minister was training manual for politicians, so not to be such suckers that’s used merely as auto pen for what their big office Mandarins want to do. Clearly Burnham is getting briefings, and is getting brainwashed into being that auto pen for Mandarins. Another good example why the WotN is just not up to job of being our PM.
Also, I’m not not saying FO are right on this, I’m not convinced either, but they likely do have some sort of argument, that makes it appear not quite so black and white, that’s not getting much of a hearing.
Getting under the hood why FO love this deal so much they can’t let go, would be interesting.
The bit I’m confident is weak part of your understanding, that’s very key to this: Maritious in bed with China. Imo everyone saying “Maritious in bed with China” over and over have brainwashed themselves, believing something not true. Don’t take my word for it, or the AI slop out there, bit of proper research for yourself and it becomes clear that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. Mauritius fancy themselves as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody and those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line. So what else have you got that proves totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India? Trade deals not enough proof alone, after all UK have sexier trade deals with China - does it put us in bed with China?
Well. Okay. yes. There is that discussion under Blair, brown, Cam, Ossie, May, Boris, perhaps we did we get too far in bed with China on business, an we have been played on security.
Your conclusion that “the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.” Ties in with Barty in the post just before yours “There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.” I’m not saying either point are wrong. But why are FO are so in bed with this idea as sensible in their view.
Maybe the malign influence of India. India want Mauritius to legally have Chagos. Barty is right, they can’t force it legally, but they can apply other forms of strong pressure on UK, in the economic and security spheres we need in the region, that UK are not getting due to India’s influence. So the foreign office is working on a balance what is now worse for UK - accommodation with India and Mauritius legal right on Chagos for all that UK security and trade damage turned off, or keep the status quo, this comes with that trade and security damage for UK from India’s influence in the region, still switched on.
I havn’t sexed it up to be like something from “the great game” - it very much is from a Great Game. And the FO are the pro ballers in that game on behalf of the British People. Where deals with influential power brokers to further your trade and security, never come so black and white as this Chagos one is always being presented in UK media.
The big problem with giving Chagos to Mauritius is that it breaks Article 1(2) of the UN Charter.
No, that line the Tory front bench used in Parliament to hold things up a bit, collapsed earlier this year Driver, when legal boffins in UN said it’s not true.
"Legal boffins in the UN" can say what they want. This deal plainly infringes on the Chagossians' right to self-determination. Unless you think they don't have such a right.
I am also right, what you quoted can no longer hold up process through parliament, even though you are right there is a strong moral angle here. You are certainly right if you say when UK ethnically cleansed the islands on the bidding of the US, it certainly dropped UK into a proper hole, not just legally, but as you point out, morally too, and also in terms of long term reputational damage and loss of influence in the region.
Did you know, when David Cameron was PM, he was presented with an answer to the very question you raised, independent consultancies bought by the British Government gave it “an escape” from that same moral maze, by explaining there was ultimately nothing that can prevent those ethnically cleansed by the British from the islands from returning, and UK even helping them to rebuild self sustaining industry and business was not the exorbitant cost blocker it was being claimed it was.
Even if Truss did open negotiations over Chagos she was there so briefly responsibility for any subsequent actions which followed through on it would have to fall on those that came after, not her.
She cannot be blamed for everything, and even where she started stuff it was on others to sort things out, and failed.
You are forgetting that Keir Starmer, as a Labour PM, has no agency. If a Conservative Government started a negotiation, he had to sign whatever deal was created.
Not to do so, would be to not doff his cap and say "Corblimey, thank you guv'nr".
No agency but wrong reason. Keir Starmer is a lawyer, not a politician, so once an international court decided, it was just a matter of following due process.
Doesn’t explain why Burnham apparently wants to continue with it.
The Foreign Office wants to continue with it. As Moonrabbit astutely observed (though she drew the in my opinion the wrong conclusion) the positive noises about Chagos came after his Foreign Office briefing. Moonrabbit thinks the conclusion is that the Foreign Office are good chaps who want to gracefully bow to the inevitable and help the politicians see that any other course is futile. I think the conclusion is that the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.
I think wiser heads will prevail, and we will not see a re-emergence of Chagos either in this parliament or in Labour's next manifesto.
Thank you Lucky. What we both agree, the idea behind Yes Minister was training manual for politicians, so not to be such suckers that’s used merely as auto pen for what their big office Mandarins want to do. Clearly Burnham is getting briefings, and is getting brainwashed into being that auto pen for Mandarins. Another good example why the WotN is just not up to job of being our PM.
Also, I’m not not saying FO are right on this, I’m not convinced either, but they likely do have some sort of argument, that makes it appear not quite so black and white, that’s not getting much of a hearing.
Getting under the hood why FO love this deal so much they can’t let go, would be interesting.
The bit I’m confident is weak part of your understanding, that’s very key to this: Maritious in bed with China. Imo everyone saying “Maritious in bed with China” over and over have brainwashed themselves, believing something not true. Don’t take my word for it, or the AI slop out there, bit of proper research for yourself and it becomes clear that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. Mauritius fancy themselves as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody and those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line. So what else have you got that proves totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India? Trade deals not enough proof alone, after all UK have sexier trade deals with China - does it put us in bed with China?
Well. Okay. yes. There is that discussion under Blair, brown, Cam, Ossie, May, Boris, perhaps we did we get too far in bed with China on business, an we have been played on security.
Your conclusion that “the Foreign Office is utterly unfit for purpose.” Ties in with Barty in the post just before yours “There is absolutely no binding legal reason why the UK needs to do this Chagos nonsense.” I’m not saying either point are wrong. But why are FO are so in bed with this idea as sensible in their view.
Maybe the malign influence of India. India want Mauritius to legally have Chagos. Barty is right, they can’t force it legally, but they can apply other forms of strong pressure on UK, in the economic and security spheres we need in the region, that UK are not getting due to India’s influence. So the foreign office is working on a balance what is now worse for UK - accommodation with India and Mauritius legal right on Chagos for all that UK security and trade damage turned off, or keep the status quo, this comes with that trade and security damage for UK from India’s influence in the region, still switched on.
I havn’t sexed it up to be like something from “the great game” - it very much is from a Great Game. And the FO are the pro ballers in that game on behalf of the British People. Where deals with influential power brokers to further your trade and security, never come so black and white as this Chagos one is always being presented in UK media.
I would sell it to the USA and use some of the money to buy off the Chagossians, who have certainly been badly treated but won't be any better treated under any possible other outcome.
Yes, I think that is a very sensible post.
If Chagouns could now return to the islands, what would they do for employment, business, industry?
There is this sense our military top brass would like to do it your way - a sort of wash our hands and draw a UK line under what hasn’t been great for UK overall. When Trump killed this deal the Democrats would have signed - the media in the region went to town laughing and lampooning how weak the UK are over Chagos in that it’s not up to UK government but one desk in the White House - you tried giving away what you own but couldn’t when Trump said no, total US poodle.
But ownership passing from us to India, via lease to Mauritius 3rd party, was a get out for UK the FO - maybe our military top brass too though we don’t have a supporting citation, and the Biden White House, all thought was a good all round move for everyone - perhaps looking forward to how two new Super Powers are rising in the region, long term thinking in the way short term minds of politicians and media never do.
But no your deal is immposible unless the US want to buy. And they never have, currently don’t, and never will want to buy Chagos from us - why on earth would they when they have such generous “friends of the owners” benefits, without any ownership hassles or bills. In “county lines” drug trade, in which this “presence in the region” is virtually identical, I believe the term for what US is doing to us is called cuckooing. This cuckooing is exactly how the US envisaged their presence in the region back in the 40s and 50s. They have been very clever in The Great Game (modern version).
I also have some sympathy with John Lilburne's solution. We do not need a base there, and while I'm optimistic about our global future (genuinely), we won't need it for some time. The US does need it, so let them get on with it and bloody pay some money for it. If anything, I would rather the US be responsible for whatever they get up to there, rather than us as the reluctant landlord.
The issue with the Chagos deal is us hiring the base for the US, for tens of billions, from the Mauritians. Um, no. Just no. It is feckless, dickless, foreign policy on a galactic scale.
You can understand long term deep state thinking in Pentagon wanting to ditch UK and pitch in with India going forward? Things have moved on a bit in that region since the British Empire’s days in India. And looking ahead, India seas the ocean named after it as its own manor, whilst it’s also key to China shipping goods through it. Sorry if that’s pitching it like a London gangster film… but it sort of is really, on its most basic level.
It is true, isn’t it, that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. As well as Mauritius fancy their future as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody but those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line till this point.
So what else have you got that proves Mauritius totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India?
The very first part of this Chagos ideal was a PowerPoint demonstration, written by the Indian Government, pitched by Mauritius government to the US in a meeting, then on the fringes of a world leaders summit Liz Truss was told the White House want UK to explore it, Liz office in number 10 then wrote a memo to the Foreign Sec: have a look into this idea will you please.
No, I don't really believe that about Liz. We do not know what she and the Mauritian PM discussed in New York - there was no cordial memorandum describing how 'constructive' their discussion was after the event - that may tell its own story.
Truss had several very assertive meetings with the USA before she became PM, demanding they do more on trade for the UK, to their frustration. That doesn't tally with her chasing after Biden and Blinken's favour in the way you describe. Truss would not have opened negotiations. Sunak on the other hand, with his family relations and interests, was far likelier to have been influenced directly by India’s stance.
In 2020/21 Trump pulled every lever available to him, some entirely legitimate, some not so - and when he ran out of levers he left office.
I give some credit for the last point. Those who don't, I assume, fear that this time he will try to use entirely illegitimate levers and will succeed. And this could be true but I don't think we have any actual evidence for it. He hasn't even, as far as I know, gone against any of the various SCOTUS rulings against him.
Reading this sent a chill down my spine.
Donald Trump organized for sets of fake electors. It is only because a small number of Republicans, who have since all lost their jobs, stood up to him that an attempted coup d'etat was avoided.
Only one thing matters in a democracy, and that is the willingness to listen to the voice of the voters. Donald Trump has, time and time again, demonstrated that he has no interest in listening to the voice of voters.
Gianni Infantino has said FIFA will examine expanding the World Cup by a further 16 nations to a 64-team tournament ahead of its next edition in 2030. The 2030 tournament will be spread across six nations and three continents: Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay are scheduled to host one match apiece at the start of the competition, with the remaining games split between Morocco, Portugal and Spain.
Might as well not bother with qualifiers. Just has a small qualifer tournament for weakest nations and the rest automatically get invited, bit like the cricket.
If its going to be more than 32, then 64 is the next best number, better than 48.
It should be a binary scale number, 64 is one just like 32.
Looking forward to the 128 team world cup.
Then we'll need to start creating more countries to get to the 256 team world cup.
Well, in a few years time, there might be teams from Chechnya, Dagestan and various other former Russian Federation States.
One set all in the Wimbledon final, Jannick Sinner v. Alexander Zverev.
I know you spend much of your life on British trains and thus think that the populace is entirely cut off from anything resembling news, but the "Sunil News" channel is going to have to do some work to get really popular.
Sunil on Sunday.
Am I imagining things, but perhaps you used to make posts 'Sunil on Sunday' ? You definitely did do some railway travelogues which were first class. .
In case it doesn't bore you:
Track done for the first time:
January 2026
Bickley Jn to Petts Wood Jn via Fast Tonbridge Loop (Southeastern weekend diversion)
Didcot West Curve Jn to Foxhall Jn (GWR weekend diversion - east to north done in 2024)
February
New loops at Cambridge South (station itself yet to open at that time) Northbound via P4 and southbound via P1 (weekdays 1000 to 1530)
Leigh-on-Sea platform 2 arrive/depart (available all day due to weekend engineering work)
March
Acton Town to Northfields (both ways) via outer ("local") tracks due to engineering works (service Acton to Heathrow only)
Barking bay P3 departure (arrival photos 2018) Dagenham East bay platform arrival/departure (arrival in dark 2018) (M-F peak hour reversals)
April
Bull Street to Millennium Point (West Midlands Metro) Millennium Point to Corporation St (also reprised Corporation St to Bull St both ways to account for new junction)
Retford P2 (high level) to Thrumpton West Jn (low level line), both ways. 1345 Worksop to Retford, 1414 from Retford.
May
Reading Spur Jn to Reading New Jn (westbound) CrossCountry engineering diversion Guildford to Reading
Connection to/from Grove Park P1 from/to the main line London Bridge to Bromley North direct service due to engineering elsewhere
June
Moorgate bay platform 3 (Hammersmith & City) Departure only, chance sight of train waiting there.
Minster station TO Minster South Jn Sunday engineering work (opposite direction done in 2017)
Tower Hill P2 westbound both ways (first definitive pics/note!) Eastbound done in 2025
Down through road at Darlington (avoiding station shed)
Glenrothes P2 to Thornton West Jn to Thornton North Jn (both ways) (Glenrothes P1 to Thornton West to South Jn done in 2019)
Larbert curve from Larbert to Falkirk (opposite direction done in 2019)
July
Kilmarnock to Troon (opposite direction done in 2018 and 2019)
Reprised East Kilbride branch to account for new two-track Hairmyres station, newly extended passing loop near there, and electrification
Carstairs north curve towards Edinburgh (towards Glasgow done in 2018)
Up through fast road at Darlington (avoiding station shed and new P5)
I envisaged your end like the final scene from Collateral - but the LNER version
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
One set all in the Wimbledon final, Jannick Sinner v. Alexander Zverev.
I know you spend much of your life on British trains and thus think that the populace is entirely cut off from anything resembling news, but the "Sunil News" channel is going to have to do some work to get really popular.
Sunil on Sunday.
Am I imagining things, but perhaps you used to make posts 'Sunil on Sunday' ? You definitely did do some railway travelogues which were first class. .
In case it doesn't bore you:
Track done for the first time:
January 2026
Bickley Jn to Petts Wood Jn via Fast Tonbridge Loop (Southeastern weekend diversion)
Didcot West Curve Jn to Foxhall Jn (GWR weekend diversion - east to north done in 2024)
February
New loops at Cambridge South (station itself yet to open at that time) Northbound via P4 and southbound via P1 (weekdays 1000 to 1530)
Leigh-on-Sea platform 2 arrive/depart (available all day due to weekend engineering work)
March
Acton Town to Northfields (both ways) via outer ("local") tracks due to engineering works (service Acton to Heathrow only)
Barking bay P3 departure (arrival photos 2018) Dagenham East bay platform arrival/departure (arrival in dark 2018) (M-F peak hour reversals)
April
Bull Street to Millennium Point (West Midlands Metro) Millennium Point to Corporation St (also reprised Corporation St to Bull St both ways to account for new junction)
Retford P2 (high level) to Thrumpton West Jn (low level line), both ways. 1345 Worksop to Retford, 1414 from Retford.
May
Reading Spur Jn to Reading New Jn (westbound) CrossCountry engineering diversion Guildford to Reading
Connection to/from Grove Park P1 from/to the main line London Bridge to Bromley North direct service due to engineering elsewhere
June
Moorgate bay platform 3 (Hammersmith & City) Departure only, chance sight of train waiting there.
Minster station TO Minster South Jn Sunday engineering work (opposite direction done in 2017)
Tower Hill P2 westbound both ways (first definitive pics/note!) Eastbound done in 2025
Down through road at Darlington (avoiding station shed)
Glenrothes P2 to Thornton West Jn to Thornton North Jn (both ways) (Glenrothes P1 to Thornton West to South Jn done in 2019)
Larbert curve from Larbert to Falkirk (opposite direction done in 2019)
July
Kilmarnock to Troon (opposite direction done in 2018 and 2019)
Reprised East Kilbride branch to account for new two-track Hairmyres station, newly extended passing loop near there, and electrification
Carstairs north curve towards Edinburgh (towards Glasgow done in 2018)
Up through fast road at Darlington (avoiding station shed and new P5)
I envisaged your end like the final scene from Collateral - but the LNER version
"Think anybody'll notice?"
The fast track through Darlington isn’t new - unless every train you’ve caught going North/ South has stopped at Darlington you’ve used those tracks before
In 2020/21 Trump pulled every lever available to him, some entirely legitimate, some not so - and when he ran out of levers he left office.
I give some credit for the last point. Those who don't, I assume, fear that this time he will try to use entirely illegitimate levers and will succeed. And this could be true but I don't think we have any actual evidence for it. He hasn't even, as far as I know, gone against any of the various SCOTUS rulings against him.
Reading this sent a chill down my spine.
Donald Trump organized for sets of fake electors. It is only because a small number of Republicans, who have since all lost their jobs, stood up to him that an attempted coup d'etat was avoided.
Only one thing matters in a democracy, and that is the willingness to listen to the voice of the voters. Donald Trump has, time and time again, demonstrated that he has no interest in listening to the voice of voters.
100% agree.
The reality is that if the current iteration of J.D. Vance was VPOTUS in 2021 then the coup d'état would have succeeded.
We only avoided it because Mike Pence upheld democracy.
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
The Widdecombe murder suddenly has got weird again.
A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden stick” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose. ... “He rarely comes out of the house, his dad used to do everything for him and I don’t know what he did for a living,” she said. “I think once his dad died he went a bit loopy.” ... Other neighbours said the suspect had lived in the property for at least a year and may have had learning difficulties. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/12/ann-widdecombe-murder-suspect-drove-dartmoor-alleged-murder/ (£££)
I had assumed rural crime but the area of Rotherham in question doesn't suggest that. It is mostly run down terraces, the sort of place where houses cost £40k and not £400k.
All very odd.
It's looking more and more like an Antifa conspiracy against the good and the righteous. Lucky Nigel got that £5m for his own close protection detail.
Or none of the above, just a weapons grade nutter.
The nutter part is a given, I think, but the idea that someone living in a crappy part of Rotherham would either know or care where Widdecombe lived is seriously odd.
It potentially only needs a couple of people to egg him on in some obscure corner of the internet, similar to the way in which some people have been encouraged to commit suicide.
One set all in the Wimbledon final, Jannick Sinner v. Alexander Zverev.
I know you spend much of your life on British trains and thus think that the populace is entirely cut off from anything resembling news, but the "Sunil News" channel is going to have to do some work to get really popular.
Sunil on Sunday.
Am I imagining things, but perhaps you used to make posts 'Sunil on Sunday' ? You definitely did do some railway travelogues which were first class. .
In case it doesn't bore you:
Track done for the first time:
January 2026
Bickley Jn to Petts Wood Jn via Fast Tonbridge Loop (Southeastern weekend diversion)
Didcot West Curve Jn to Foxhall Jn (GWR weekend diversion - east to north done in 2024)
February
New loops at Cambridge South (station itself yet to open at that time) Northbound via P4 and southbound via P1 (weekdays 1000 to 1530)
Leigh-on-Sea platform 2 arrive/depart (available all day due to weekend engineering work)
March
Acton Town to Northfields (both ways) via outer ("local") tracks due to engineering works (service Acton to Heathrow only)
Barking bay P3 departure (arrival photos 2018) Dagenham East bay platform arrival/departure (arrival in dark 2018) (M-F peak hour reversals)
April
Bull Street to Millennium Point (West Midlands Metro) Millennium Point to Corporation St (also reprised Corporation St to Bull St both ways to account for new junction)
Retford P2 (high level) to Thrumpton West Jn (low level line), both ways. 1345 Worksop to Retford, 1414 from Retford.
May
Reading Spur Jn to Reading New Jn (westbound) CrossCountry engineering diversion Guildford to Reading
Connection to/from Grove Park P1 from/to the main line London Bridge to Bromley North direct service due to engineering elsewhere
June
Moorgate bay platform 3 (Hammersmith & City) Departure only, chance sight of train waiting there.
Minster station TO Minster South Jn Sunday engineering work (opposite direction done in 2017)
Tower Hill P2 westbound both ways (first definitive pics/note!) Eastbound done in 2025
Down through road at Darlington (avoiding station shed)
Glenrothes P2 to Thornton West Jn to Thornton North Jn (both ways) (Glenrothes P1 to Thornton West to South Jn done in 2019)
Larbert curve from Larbert to Falkirk (opposite direction done in 2019)
July
Kilmarnock to Troon (opposite direction done in 2018 and 2019)
Reprised East Kilbride branch to account for new two-track Hairmyres station, newly extended passing loop near there, and electrification
Carstairs north curve towards Edinburgh (towards Glasgow done in 2018)
Up through fast road at Darlington (avoiding station shed and new P5)
I envisaged your end like the final scene from Collateral - but the LNER version
"Think anybody'll notice?"
The fast track through Darlington isn’t new - unless every train you’ve caught going North/ South has stopped at Darlington you’ve used those tracks before
Which is the whole point of my list! You think P3 at Moorgate or P2 at Leigh-on-Sea are new??
In 2020/21 Trump pulled every lever available to him, some entirely legitimate, some not so - and when he ran out of levers he left office.
I give some credit for the last point. Those who don't, I assume, fear that this time he will try to use entirely illegitimate levers and will succeed. And this could be true but I don't think we have any actual evidence for it. He hasn't even, as far as I know, gone against any of the various SCOTUS rulings against him.
Reading this sent a chill down my spine.
Donald Trump organized for sets of fake electors. It is only because a small number of Republicans, who have since all lost their jobs, stood up to him that an attempted coup d'etat was avoided.
Only one thing matters in a democracy, and that is the willingness to listen to the voice of the voters. Donald Trump has, time and time again, demonstrated that he has no interest in listening to the voice of voters.
100% agree.
The reality is that if the current iteration of J.D. Vance was VPOTUS in 2021 then the coup d'état would have succeeded.
We only avoided it because Mike Pence upheld democracy.
And because Dan Quayle saved the Republic - by telling Pence (rather forcefully) to obey his oath of office.
'Trump orders flags to half mast in honor of Lindsey Graham President Donald Trump ordered flags across the country to half mast in honor of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Sunday.
Trump announced the order in a post on his Truth Social account, calling Graham a "truly great man."
"In honor of the remarkable life and achievements of Senator Lindsey Graham, a dear friend of mine, and a truly great man, who achieved so much for our Country, and his beloved Home State of South Carolina, I am ordering all American Flags throughout the United States lowered to Half Mast until Saturday evening at 6 P.M.," Trump wrote.'
"A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden pole” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose."
"A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden pole” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose."
"A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden pole” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose."
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
They sent Jeffrey Donaldson down after he was convicted recently, pending sentencing in September.
My first assumption is that it's a desperate expedient as a result of a lack of prison capacity. Would suggest that there needs to be a decision to simply reduce sentences across the board, or to build more prisons.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
Maybe it avoids public outrage when the case is finally heard and the convicted man walks free because he's already done his time whilst remanded. Of course, just his bad luck if he's found innocent.
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
"A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden pole” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose."
"A man suspected of murdering Ann Widdecombe is believed to have driven nearly 300 miles to her Dartmoor home with a “wooden pole” on the morning of her death, The Telegraph can disclose."
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
They sent Jeffrey Donaldson down after he was convicted recently, pending sentencing in September.
My first assumption is that it's a desperate expedient as a result of a lack of prison capacity. Would suggest that there needs to be a decision to simply reduce sentences across the board, or to build more prisons.
That could be right but you'd think this would be just about the last defendant to get bail.
As for your solutions - one of these is political Kryptonite and the other will take too long. Maybe Burnham will have the courage to go for the Kryptonite.
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
Maybe it avoids public outrage when the case is finally heard and the convicted man walks free because he's already done his time whilst remanded. Of course, just his bad luck if he's found innocent.
It's post-conviction bail not post-charge bail being discussed...
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
Maybe it avoids public outrage when the case is finally heard and the convicted man walks free because he's already done his time whilst remanded. Of course, just his bad luck if he's found innocent.
But in this case it's a matter of the man being on bail after conviction.
He was eventually given a sentence of 24 years, so it would have been obvious he was facing a very long sentence. Even if he hadn't done a runner it feels like a denial of justice for him to enjoy some final weeks of liberty before sentencing.
I'm baffled by this story. A man was convicted of raping four children - making a long custodial sentence inevitable - but he was on bail until sentencing. So, unsurprisingly, he fled, and British and Irish police had to expend serious effort in tracking him down. Why was he on bail?
I don't know anything about this history of the case, but it appears that "you will get a prison sentence" isn't sufficient to deny bail pending sentencing - there has to be another reason to deny bail such as having previously failed to surrender or having committed the offence while already on bail.
Maybe it avoids public outrage when the case is finally heard and the convicted man walks free because he's already done his time whilst remanded. Of course, just his bad luck if he's found innocent.
But in this case it's a matter of the man being on bail after conviction.
He was eventually given a sentence of 24 years, so it would have been obvious he was facing a very long sentence. Even if he hadn't done a runner it feels like a denial of justice for him to enjoy some final weeks of liberty before sentencing.
Rolf Harris was bailed.
So was that teacher who became pregnant after having sex with two of her pupils.
So this is normal. Whether it's right is a different question but it's not out of the ordinary.
Rather nice piece from Hunter Biden on the death of Graham. Great closing line in particular.
What a strange thing to say. Why would one need to believe in 2029?
I don't know where the 2029 comes from in your post? Although I would assume the date suggests a hope that when Trump is out of office on 20th January 2029 politics in America can return to something bordering on the collegiate, irrespective of rosette colour.
Personally I believe that to be unlikely.
20th January 2029, at the latest, is when America after Trump begins. This doesn't need "belief".
It's popular on the American left to pretend Trump will stay in office after then.
Indeed, and it's utterly absurd.
Yes, nothing Trump has ever done has suggested anything less than complete respect for democracy and Constitution.
He left office after losing to Joe Biden
Yes, with characteristic good grace after the riot he incited failed to prevent the result being finalised.
Bearing in mind that atrump 47 is far less inhibited than Trump 45 can we count on him going more quietly this time?
The Mid-terms should give us some idea.
I’ve read on here they won’t be allowed to happen. So I’m not sure they will.
Meantime in the U.K. our govt genuinely blocked local elections from taking place when they were due and this was only overturned after legal action.
I personally thought that a cynical error sold as pragmatism. However comparing it to an attempted coup and demanding faux votes from the Governor of Georgia is a nonsense.
Ah, we're getting all the silly memes tonight.
What silly memes are those? My post was entirely factual.
It showed a lack of understanding of the conversation in question.
From you or from me?
I don't claim to be anthing but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
Afraid not. Legal procedure is something I happen to know a bit about, which is why I know the Democrats' attack line here is bollocks.
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
Why does he still insist he won in 2020 ? Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
Now that's a good question.
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
Then you fail to understand Donald Trump.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
That does hold together if he knows that they are lies. And if he does he's a really good actor as he does a very good job of coming across as if he believes they are actually true.
Comments
(Only joking Sunil ;-))
The fear is there will be a military presence on the streets of Democratic cities, and voter suppression tactics will be employed. Trump wants the win and will claim the win. The fun starts if the Republican Party lose badly. They have said already that anything other than Republican House, Senate and Gubernatorial victories will be considered to be voter fraud.
Then I think it has far too close a relationship with the US State Department, who (certainly under the Democrats, but possibly at its 'deep state' core) seem in favour of this deal. They are not our friends.
Then I think it got even worse when it became the FDCO, because it inherited a large cadre of people from DFID who were totally ideologically captured and joined up with the sole intention of giving British money away to foreigners.
Jason Cowley says in todays Sunday Times that Ed Balls and David Miliband have wanted return to frontline uk politics for some time and were seeking seats before 2024 but Starmer's "team" blocked them.
And, of course, the way you phrased that is part of the problem. Pointing out the Democrats' BS is neither defending Trump nor speaking on his behalf.
I don't claim to be anything but an ill educated serf, but I suspect here I am right and you are way off beam.
2 sets to 1
If Chagouns could now return to the islands, what would they do for employment, business, industry?
There is this sense our military top brass would like to do it your way - a sort of wash our hands and draw a UK line under what hasn’t been great for UK overall. When Trump killed this deal the Democrats would have signed - the media in the region went to town laughing and lampooning how weak the UK are over Chagos in that it’s not up to UK government but one desk in the White House - you tried giving away what you own but couldn’t when Trump said no, total US poodle.
But ownership passing from us to India, via lease to Mauritius 3rd party, was a get out for UK the FO - maybe our military top brass too though we don’t have a supporting citation, and the Biden White House, all thought was a good all round move for everyone - perhaps looking forward to how two new Super Powers are rising in the region, long term thinking in the way short term minds of politicians and media never do.
But no your deal is immposible unless the US want to buy. And they never have, currently don’t, and never will want to buy Chagos from us - why on earth would they when they have such generous “friends of the owners” benefits, without any ownership hassles or bills. In “county lines” drug trade, in which this “presence in the region” is virtually identical, I believe the term for what US is doing to us is called cuckooing. This cuckooing is exactly how the US envisaged their presence in the region back in the 40s and 50s. They have been very clever in The Great Game (modern version).
In the Democrats' telling of it, Trump wanted Raffensperger to add 11 thousand totally new votes to Trump's total so he could be declared the winner outright.
In the real world, Trump was hoping to sue but knew he couldn't do so unless questions over that many votes - either counted or rejected, in the appropriate direction - of that amount could be identified.
Now, I admit to the lay person this distinction may be too subtle to appreciate. But it's definitely there.
All it evidences is that his opponents think it will happen.
And back to the here and now, just one more thing. Riddle me this;
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/16/trump-voting-rights-elections
MRDA.
That said, it's probably true to an extent. Certainly Trump wants to change the rules in his favour as much as possible. That doesn't mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
The issue with the Chagos deal is us hiring the base for the US, for tens of billions, from the Mauritians. Um, no. Just no. It is feckless, dickless, foreign policy on a galactic scale.
So presumably somewhere back in the day she passed the basic 'journalism and law' section of a journalists initial training.
Clearly a long time ago...
Isabel Oakeshott
@IsabelOakeshott
When a high profile political figure is murdered in their own home, in rural England, at lunchtime on a Wednesday, it is entirely natural and reasonable to wonder why. Of course people are going to speculate about motive!
https://x.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/2076325601246355474
As ever with the Swiss cheese model, you need to focus on the layers that could have been expected to work better.
The Lewis Nicholls Show
"In This episode of Life Stories Ann talks about her career in politics, her opinion on former prime ministers, she also responds to allegations of racism and homophobia.
Ann takes a look into her television career from Strictly to Celebrity Big Brother."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHNpJiVnIGY
Indeed. But desire is not ability - nor does it mean that mean that if he fails he'll start declaring martial law or whatever even more hyperbolic nonsense people come up with.
Unless you can name an actual consequence for disregarding an advisory judgement.
It is true, isn’t it, that Mauritius are firmly in bed on military and security with India, who they are quite close to culturally and ethnically too due to historical migration. As well as Mauritius fancy their future as “East Coast Singapore” as the Chatham House articles call it - trade deals they have signed with everybody but those with China are doing too much heavy lifting for the “totally in bed with China” spin line till this point.
So what else have you got that proves Mauritius totally in bed with China? Security and military deals that outstrip those they have with India?
The very first part of this Chagos ideal was a PowerPoint demonstration, written by the Indian Government, pitched by Mauritius government to the US in a meeting, then on the fringes of a world leaders summit Liz Truss was told the White House want UK to explore it, Liz office in number 10 then wrote a memo to the Foreign Sec: have a look into this idea will you please.
Allegations of Prostitution and Sex Clubs
Financial documents and whistleblower testimony indicate that Hunter Biden frequently paid for sex workers and visited adult entertainment venues between 2016 and 2019.
Financial Expenditures:
Bank records and Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) suggest Biden spent approximately $188,000 on adult entertainment and nearly $683,000 on "relationships with various women" during this period. Specific transactions include an $11,500 payment for a two-night escort service in 2018 and a $1,500 Venmo transfer to an exotic dancer disguised as an "artwork" purchase.
Mann Act Concerns: Text messages and travel records obtained from the laptop allege that Biden transported women across state lines for sexual encounters, potentially violating the Mann Act. One instance describes him booking Amtrak tickets for three women to travel from Boston to New York for a sexual encounter in a hotel suite.
Tax Fraud Allegations:
During the investigation into Biden’s taxes, IRS whistleblowers testified that he attempted to deduct these expenses as business costs. Allegations include writing off payments to a "West Coast assistant" who was allegedly a prostitute and deducting an $18,000 wire transfer to a sex club as a "golf membership" deposit.
Divorce and Infidelity
Biden’s first wife, Kathleen Buhle, detailed extensive infidelity and financial misconduct in their 2017 divorce filings.
Specific Accusations:
In court documents, Buhle accused Biden of squandering family funds on "drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs, and gifts for women with whom he has sexual relations."
Admissions:
Biden reportedly admitted to Buhle that he had cheated on her five times, claiming the encounters were with prostitutes while he was drinking.
Affair with Hallie Biden:
The marriage ultimately ended following the revelation of an affair between Hunter and Hallie Biden, the widow of his late brother Beau. Emails show Kathleen confronting Hunter about the affair, citing evidence of jewelry and travel purchases for Hallie.
Explicit Content and Legal Actions
The laptop also contained numerous explicit images and videos of Biden, some of which became the subject of legal disputes.
Non-Consensual Distribution:
In July 2024, Biden filed a lawsuit against Fox News under New York’s "revenge porn" laws. The suit alleged that the network unlawfully broadcast explicit images of him engaged in sex acts as part of a streaming series, causing humiliation and reputational damage.
Unverified Claims:
While various explicit materials have circulated online, including allegations of involvement with minors, law enforcement and fact-checkers have found no evidence to support claims of child pornography or illegal acts involving minors on the laptop. These specific claims are widely regarded as disinformation.
In 2020/21 Trump pulled every lever available to him, some entirely legitimate, some not so - and when he ran out of levers he left office.
I give some credit for the last point. Those who don't, I assume, fear that this time he will try to use entirely illegitimate levers and will succeed. And this could be true but I don't think we have any actual evidence for it. He hasn't even, as far as I know, gone against any of the various SCOTUS rulings against him.
I may be wrong about everything else political; Brexit was a disaster, Johnson was a terrible Prime Minister and Truss and Kwarteng's budget wasn't the most Conservative budget since 1986 may all be incorrect, but I am on the money regarding Trump.
Why wven will none of his coterie, or nominees who go before the Senate for approval admit that he lost ?
You are certainly right if you say when UK ethnically cleansed the islands on the bidding of the US, it certainly dropped UK into a proper hole, not just legally, but as you point out, morally too, and also in terms of long term reputational damage and loss of influence in the region.
Did you know, when David Cameron was PM, he was presented with an answer to the very question you raised, independent consultancies bought by the British Government gave it “an escape” from that same moral maze, by explaining there was ultimately nothing that can prevent those ethnically cleansed by the British from the islands from returning, and UK even helping them to rebuild self sustaining industry and business was not the exorbitant cost blocker it was being claimed it was.
Cameron rejected it, and buried it.
Truss had several very assertive meetings with the USA before she became PM, demanding they do more on trade for the UK, to their frustration. That doesn't tally with her chasing after Biden and Blinken's favour in the way you describe. Truss would not have opened negotiations. Sunak on the other hand, with his family relations and interests, was far likelier to have been influenced directly by India’s stance.
Donald Trump organized for sets of fake electors. It is only because a small number of Republicans, who have since all lost their jobs, stood up to him that an attempted coup d'etat was avoided.
Only one thing matters in a democracy, and that is the willingness to listen to the voice of the voters. Donald Trump has, time and time again, demonstrated that he has no interest in listening to the voice of voters.
Sinner beats Zverev in 4 sets:
6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 6-4
Back to back Wimbledon titles for the Italian.
(Paul Oakenfold intensifies)
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2026/07/12/cork-gardai-praised-for-role-in-apprehending-serial-british-child-sex-offender/
It always seemed to me that his better argument was to attack some of the special Covid measures that some states put in place rather than claim that the result as declared didn't match the votes as cast. It still wouldn't have worked, of course, because he did lose.
And I can't see anything to gain from continuing to claim otherwise.
The reality is that if the current iteration of J.D. Vance was VPOTUS in 2021 then the coup d'état would have succeeded.
We only avoided it because Mike Pence upheld democracy.
https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/pronouncement-builder/remand-in-custody-either-way-indictable-offences/
This doesn't make any sense to me either.
President Donald Trump ordered flags across the country to half mast in honor of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Sunday.
Trump announced the order in a post on his Truth Social account, calling Graham a "truly great man."
"In honor of the remarkable life and achievements of Senator Lindsey Graham, a dear friend of mine, and a truly great man, who achieved so much for our Country, and his beloved Home State of South Carolina, I am ordering all American Flags throughout the United States lowered to Half Mast until Saturday evening at 6 P.M.," Trump wrote.'
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/longtime-gop-sen-lindsey-graham-dies-71-brief-sudden-illness
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/12/ann-widdecombe-murder-suspect-drove-dartmoor-alleged-murder/
My first assumption is that it's a desperate expedient as a result of a lack of prison capacity. Would suggest that there needs to be a decision to simply reduce sentences across the board, or to build more prisons.
All he prizes is loyalty to himself. And this is the acid test: are you willing to go out and repeat his lies, and to deny reality?
And he knows that the more times a lie is repeated, and the more people who repeat it, the more it will be believed. And remember that around 40% of Republicans do believe those lies.
As for your solutions - one of these is political Kryptonite and the other will take too long. Maybe Burnham will have the courage to go for the Kryptonite.
He was eventually given a sentence of 24 years, so it would have been obvious he was facing a very long sentence. Even if he hadn't done a runner it feels like a denial of justice for him to enjoy some final weeks of liberty before sentencing.
https://x.com/bnodesk/status/2076384613228843450?s=61
So was that teacher who became pregnant after having sex with two of her pupils.
So this is normal. Whether it's right is a different question but it's not out of the ordinary.