Peter Hitchens did have a point (and that's not something I say every day) when he said recently that things were better in the 70s...
No social media making politicians attention seeking morons (David Cameron was dead right with his comment, at the start of the social media revolution about Too Many Tweets Make A...) and stirring up hatred on both sides.
And news was genuine "NEWS" !
On the BBC you had just three news bulletins a day (1pm, 6pm 9/10pm) and that was it. Time was limited so they had to make sure the things they were reporting were genuine "news" rather than nonsense and tittle tattle.
In between the news everyone just watched Dallas and Bouquet Of Barbed Wire (when the power was actually on) and got on with their lives...
There wasn't the nevereding psycho dramas we get now despite the fact the country was actually in far more "crisis" in the 70s than it is now or has been at any time since.
People had perspective and a sense of proportion. I guess that's partly because there were still a lot of people around that went through WW1 and nearly everyone was still alive who lived through WW2.
I've said it before. 24hr rolling "news" means they have to keep an endless cycle of drama and scandal going, in order to have something to talk about to fill the (literally) endless hours of "news" coverage. A new scandal or disaster needs to be discovered at all times... And when you add to it, journalists are generally terrible, cynical, ghastly people... you can see the problem.
24hr news is a horribly destructive thing that has done so much damage since it arrived here in the 1980s (spearheaded by Andrew Neil - Wonder what he thinks about it all now) and then when you add it to the harm and damage of the social media revolution... That is why we have had 7 Prime Minister in ten years and why the country is largely ungovernable.
Until a government or PM has the strength to take this head on and deal it, this endless cycle of drama, crisis and the revolving door in Downing Street, will go on...
I remember having some positive thoughts about the idea of a 24hr news channel. Loads of time to really dive into issues. Two hours of thoughtful debate on the pro's and con's of a policy? Why not? Long investigative piece into a scandal about local procurement practices in a Welsh council? Go for it!
And then it turned out just to be a ticker-tape feed of sh*te - and here we are with 'flagship' news programmes amounting to a presenters smirking to camera "But... they said.... Tomat-ah! What do you say about that, Minster?".
Anyway, focusing on the important things about the header: 'Focussing' just looks wrong to me.
Lots of language points today, which is great. Focusing and focussing are both OK. The logic behind the double s is that you often double the final consonant when adding a suffix, eg sit / sitting.
I accept both are 'allowed' but generally for words with two or more syllables you only double the final consonant if the stress falls on the very last syllable. That's not happening with focusing. (Not when I am listening anyway.)
Can someone explain to me how lyrics from a song in 1979 and a cartoon of a head chopping device from 1789 can apparently be incitement to murder someone not named in 2026?
Can someone explain to me how lyrics from a song in 1979 and a cartoon of a head chopping device from 1789 can apparently be incitement to murder someone not named in 2026?
How many Nigels do you know ?
I don't think it's criminal, but it is highly irresponsible from a supposedly senior politician.
Anyway, focusing on the important things about the header: 'Focussing' just looks wrong to me.
Lots of language points today, which is great. Focusing and focussing are both OK. The logic behind the double s is that you often double the final consonant when adding a suffix, eg sit / sitting.
I accept both are 'allowed' but generally for words with two or more syllables you only double the final consonant if the stress falls on the very last syllable. That's not happening with focusing. (Not when I am listening anyway.)
Not always. eg Travel -> Travelling (UK English). But logic doesn't get you very far.
Can someone explain to me how lyrics from a song in 1979 and a cartoon of a head chopping device from 1789 can apparently be incitement to murder someone not named in 2026?
How many Nigels do you know ?
I don't think it's criminal, but it is highly irresponsible from a supposedly senior politician.
It's song lyrics. From a classic band. In what way can the "Nigel" referred to possibly be Farage?
Are there any other song lyrics that Reform want to have banned from t-shirts?
Can someone explain to me how lyrics from a song in 1979 and a cartoon of a head chopping device from 1789 can apparently be incitement to murder someone not named in 2026?
How many Nigels do you know ?
I don't think it's criminal, but it is highly irresponsible from a supposedly senior politician.
It's song lyrics. From a classic band. In what way can the "Nigel" referred to possibly be Farage?
Are there any other song lyrics that Reform want to have banned from t-shirts?
Don't be silly. Putting that phrase alongside a guillotine - now, not in 1979 - is not exactly ambiguous.
In an ever changing world one can be sure of the Monday TACO.
A deal of some description, despite all the waffling, has always remained the most likely outcome given further escalation requires political and military commitments that would be quite risky.
The issue is what's in those deals, and each side selling those deals back home. Trump has such a hold on his party most of them will take anything he says, but not all will.
Can someone explain to me how lyrics from a song in 1979 and a cartoon of a head chopping device from 1789 can apparently be incitement to murder someone not named in 2026?
How many Nigels do you know ?
I don't think it's criminal, but it is highly irresponsible from a supposedly senior politician.
It's song lyrics. From a classic band. In what way can the "Nigel" referred to possibly be Farage?
Are there any other song lyrics that Reform want to have banned from t-shirts?
The law is not autistic. If "a reasonable person" knows what it means, if the intent is that, it means that.
Reform UK say they are reporting Green Party leader Zack Polanski to the police after he shared a post to his Instagram which included a photo of a man wearing a top featuring the name "Nigel" alongside an image of a guillotine.
Should they not be reporting the bloke wearing the t-shirt first if that is the route they want to go down?
I am no Polanski fan, but retweeting an unpleasant post about Farage and the work of the Grim Reaper is less problematic than Farage quoting Andrew Tate bullshite which caused riots and the attempted burning of migrants in their hotel beds.
Farage considers he is such a victim.
It's not the grim reaper it's a guillotine. Implication quite clear. And should someone behead Farage tonight you would look rather foolish.
Polanski is an idiot, every bit as stupid as Corbyn.
Worse, I reckon.
JCorbz had something of the holy fool about him. He should never have been Labour leader, and it was right to kick him out of the Labour party, but he was just the channel for some well-meaning but wrong ideas.
Zack P gives every impression of knowing exactly what he's doing, which is the advancement of Zack P. Farage doesn't deserve that photo, but otherwise, NF and ZP deserve each other.
A decade ago, politicians have discovered they can win a campaign just on hatred. That hasn't really changed yet.
Polanski can't win with this type of shite - it feels like a *very* niche core vote strategy.
It's juvenile, which does seem to be more popular with the public generally when it comes to politics thesedays, but this type of thing he must know plays badly as, a bit like Corbyn with the mural, he has distanced himself somewhat.
A take from a right winger (economically at any rate):
Come on. It's a silly post, but it's clearly not 'incitement' to anything. It's the sort of thing Lefties post when they're trying to be edgy. It's not meant to be taken absolutely literally. https://nitter.poast.org/K_Niemietz/status/2081811684608340418#m
Can someone explain to me how lyrics from a song in 1979 and a cartoon of a head chopping device from 1789 can apparently be incitement to murder someone not named in 2026?
How many Nigels do you know ?
The name ‘Nigel’ is now extinct – yet another thing we can probably blame on Brexit
In an ever changing world one can be sure of the Monday TACO.
A deal of some description, despite all the waffling, has always remained the most likely outcome given further escalation requires political and military commitments that would be quite risky.
The issue is what's in those deals, and each side selling those deals back home. Trump has such a hold on his party most of them will take anything he says, but not all will.
The Yanks want to go home; the Iranians are already at home. This is all ye know and all ye need to know.
Trump has lost this war. Every renegotiation leads to further surrender. Of course, he may order a massive attack, or even a nuclear strike, in ultimate exasperation, but unlike 1945 this would be an admission of failure that all the world will recognise.
Can I ask the PB Legal Brains Trust for their view?
I've just returned from holiday in France, where my car hire booked via Booking.com was declined because the card I offered for the deposit was issued by First Direct. This was because it fell foul of the following requirement "Cards distributed by neobanks (online-only banks) are not accepted"
It never occurred to me that First Direct might fall into this category as it's certainly not a neobank and isn't even 'online-only' not least because it is also a telephone bank and in fact not quite all services are yet available online. And I've had my credit card with them since 1998 when online banks weren't even a thing! So I have raised a complaint and got a pushback but decided to leave it until I got back to pursue more vigorously rather than spoil my holiday .
(FWIW First Direct agreed with me as they agreed to challenge my card payment but whether they are prepared to say so in writing is of course a different matter).
So - a couple of questions:
1. Is there a legal definition of either 'neobank' or 'online-only'? I don't believe there is one
2. Does the fact that 'online-only' is in parentheses matter? My interpretation of that is that it is attempting to help the lay reader understand what a neobank is.
Interestingly they provided a list of cards that weren't accepted (and didn't qualify that with 'such as') that included Monzo and Revolut and some others I haven't heard of but First Direct is not listed.
My view is that they have been insufficiently clear in the T&Cs and have relied on 'online-only' equating to 'no physical branches'. If they had said 'online or telephone only' then I would have cancelled it straight away.
They offered a refund minus cancellation fee but I have not accepted it because as far as I'm concerned I have complied with their terms and they haven't provided the service, they cancelled it not me. I had to hire a car with a competitor directly at roughly double the charge due to availability so I will amuse myself attempting to recover the full cost (I know they aren't liable for that but I shall enjoy myself wasting a lot of their time).
Also a warning to others going to Europe - apparently this is a relatively new thing due to problems with getting correct payments from some of the neobanks so please check your T&Cs carefully and First Direct may not be accepted.
Can someone explain to me how lyrics from a song in 1979 and a cartoon of a head chopping device from 1789 can apparently be incitement to murder someone not named in 2026?
The walls are closing in on Todd Blanche, Trump's Attorney General.
Katie Phang, a campaigning lawyer who has taken Court Action to force the release of particular unredacted emails where individuals other than victims' have had their details redacted in violation of the law, reviewing a few items of detail like an impatient school teacher:
So how many times is Donald Trump's name going to appear on these redacted emails? There should be a spread sheet.
The particular ones in the Katie Phang action are targeted at exposing the DoJ abuse of process, and as clear examples of how the DoJ have not followed the "Epstein File4s Transparency Law". The Judge is forcing disclosure of the small number of samples in camera, so she can Judge.
On Trump, we have data from the parts of the files which have been published. The redaction was incompetent and some slipped through.
We also iirc have some data, which I am not convinced is reliable, from when some members of I think the House of Representatives Judicial Committee were allowed into the Department of Justice to examine the documents on DOJ owned computers in a secure room - as sometimes happens here. They made some comments on number of results in keyword searches, but I do not know where it is all detailed.
Three criteria for any project: good, cheap and quick. And you can pick any two. And Congress mandated quick and didn't provide the funding for anything but cheap.
A take from a right winger (economically at any rate):
Come on. It's a silly post, but it's clearly not 'incitement' to anything. It's the sort of thing Lefties post when they're trying to be edgy. It's not meant to be taken absolutely literally. https://nitter.poast.org/K_Niemietz/status/2081811684608340418#m
But an enraged housewife's postings were? Sauce for the goose and all that.
Can I ask the PB Legal Brains Trust for their view?
I've just returned from holiday in France, where my car hire booked via Booking.com was declined because the card I offered for the deposit was issued by First Direct. This was because it fell foul of the following requirement "Cards distributed by neobanks (online-only banks) are not accepted"
It never occurred to me that First Direct might fall into this category as it's certainly not a neobank and isn't even 'online-only' not least because it is also a telephone bank and in fact not quite all services are yet available online. And I've had my credit card with them since 1998 when online banks weren't even a thing! So I have raised a complaint and got a pushback but decided to leave it until I got back to pursue more vigorously rather than spoil my holiday .
(FWIW First Direct agreed with me as they agreed to challenge my card payment but whether they are prepared to say so in writing is of course a different matter).
So - a couple of questions:
1. Is there a legal definition of either 'neobank' or 'online-only'? I don't believe there is one
2. Does the fact that 'online-only' is in parentheses matter? My interpretation of that is that it is attempting to help the lay reader understand what a neobank is.
Interestingly they provided a list of cards that weren't accepted (and didn't qualify that with 'such as') that included Monzo and Revolut and some others I haven't heard of but First Direct is not listed.
My view is that they have been insufficiently clear in the T&Cs and have relied on 'online-only' equating to 'no physical branches'. If they had said 'online or telephone only' then I would have cancelled it straight away.
They offered a refund minus cancellation fee but I have not accepted it because as far as I'm concerned I have complied with their terms and they haven't provided the service, they cancelled it not me. I had to hire a car with a competitor directly at roughly double the charge due to availability so I will amuse myself attempting to recover the full cost (I know they aren't liable for that but I shall enjoy myself wasting a lot of their time).
Also a warning to others going to Europe - apparently this is a relatively new thing due to problems with getting correct payments from some of the neobanks so please check your T&Cs carefully and First Direct may not be accepted.
Have you asked your travel insurer? Perhaps if you claim with them for the whole thing, they can fight it for you? Or, at least you might be able to phone them and ask for advice?
A take from a right winger (economically at any rate):
Come on. It's a silly post, but it's clearly not 'incitement' to anything. It's the sort of thing Lefties post when they're trying to be edgy. It's not meant to be taken absolutely literally. https://nitter.poast.org/K_Niemietz/status/2081811684608340418#m
But an enraged housewife's postings were? Sauce for the goose and all that.
Two wrongs don't make a right, we are taught that as children.
Can I ask the PB Legal Brains Trust for their view?
I've just returned from holiday in France, where my car hire booked via Booking.com was declined because the card I offered for the deposit was issued by First Direct. This was because it fell foul of the following requirement "Cards distributed by neobanks (online-only banks) are not accepted"
It never occurred to me that First Direct might fall into this category as it's certainly not a neobank and isn't even 'online-only' not least because it is also a telephone bank and in fact not quite all services are yet available online. And I've had my credit card with them since 1998 when online banks weren't even a thing! So I have raised a complaint and got a pushback but decided to leave it until I got back to pursue more vigorously rather than spoil my holiday .
(FWIW First Direct agreed with me as they agreed to challenge my card payment but whether they are prepared to say so in writing is of course a different matter).
So - a couple of questions:
1. Is there a legal definition of either 'neobank' or 'online-only'? I don't believe there is one
2. Does the fact that 'online-only' is in parentheses matter? My interpretation of that is that it is attempting to help the lay reader understand what a neobank is.
Interestingly they provided a list of cards that weren't accepted (and didn't qualify that with 'such as') that included Monzo and Revolut and some others I haven't heard of but First Direct is not listed.
My view is that they have been insufficiently clear in the T&Cs and have relied on 'online-only' equating to 'no physical branches'. If they had said 'online or telephone only' then I would have cancelled it straight away.
They offered a refund minus cancellation fee but I have not accepted it because as far as I'm concerned I have complied with their terms and they haven't provided the service, they cancelled it not me. I had to hire a car with a competitor directly at roughly double the charge due to availability so I will amuse myself attempting to recover the full cost (I know they aren't liable for that but I shall enjoy myself wasting a lot of their time).
Also a warning to others going to Europe - apparently this is a relatively new thing due to problems with getting correct payments from some of the neobanks so please check your T&Cs carefully and First Direct may not be accepted.
Have you asked your travel insurer? Perhaps if you claim with them for the whole thing, they can fight it for you? Or, at least you might be able to phone them and ask for advice?
Good thought - I was thinking about it but was wondering if they might take the same position
The walls are closing in on Todd Blanche, Trump's Attorney General.
Katie Phang, a campaigning lawyer who has taken Court Action to force the release of particular unredacted emails where individuals other than victims' have had their details redacted in violation of the law, reviewing a few items of detail like an impatient school teacher:
So how many times is Donald Trump's name going to appear on these redacted emails? There should be a spread sheet.
The particular ones in the Katie Phang action are targeted at exposing the DoJ abuse of process, and as clear examples of how the DoJ have not followed the "Epstein File4s Transparency Law". The Judge is forcing disclosure of the small number of samples in camera, so she can Judge.
On Trump, we have data from the parts of the files which have been published. The redaction was incompetent and some slipped through.
We also iirc have some data, which I am not convinced is reliable, from when some members of I think the House of Representatives Judicial Committee were allowed into the Department of Justice to examine the documents on DOJ owned computers in a secure room - as sometimes happens here. They made some comments on number of results in keyword searches, but I do not know where it is all detailed.
Three criteria for any project: good, cheap and quick. And you can pick any two. And Congress mandated quick and didn't provide the funding for anything but cheap.
Trump promised to release the files years ago, but his administration has just stalled all the way. They had had plenty of time.
Ginormous full moon out there tonight. If you own a pair of binoculars go and take a peek. You'll never have a better chance (except, maybe, tomorrow, but then it will be an hour later).
A take from a right winger (economically at any rate):
Come on. It's a silly post, but it's clearly not 'incitement' to anything. It's the sort of thing Lefties post when they're trying to be edgy. It's not meant to be taken absolutely literally. https://nitter.poast.org/K_Niemietz/status/2081811684608340418#m
It's worth a note that - regardless of our view - that is a serious right winger with some weight, being the Editorial Director of the IEA.
(I don't agree with him, unless maybe Polanski can show it is a genuine mistake - but my view is that this is for the police to determine. I'd accept that both sides to an extent tend to spend their time trying to walk the line without crossing it - my own MP does it *, but I put quite a weight on our current febrile politics and the importance of keeping them calm.)
* He's currently cross that our local newspaper has clipped some inflammatory material on this matter from his column.
Can I ask the PB Legal Brains Trust for their view?
I've just returned from holiday in France, where my car hire booked via Booking.com was declined because the card I offered for the deposit was issued by First Direct. This was because it fell foul of the following requirement "Cards distributed by neobanks (online-only banks) are not accepted"
It never occurred to me that First Direct might fall into this category as it's certainly not a neobank and isn't even 'online-only' not least because it is also a telephone bank and in fact not quite all services are yet available online. And I've had my credit card with them since 1998 when online banks weren't even a thing! So I have raised a complaint and got a pushback but decided to leave it until I got back to pursue more vigorously rather than spoil my holiday .
(FWIW First Direct agreed with me as they agreed to challenge my card payment but whether they are prepared to say so in writing is of course a different matter).
So - a couple of questions:
1. Is there a legal definition of either 'neobank' or 'online-only'? I don't believe there is one
2. Does the fact that 'online-only' is in parentheses matter? My interpretation of that is that it is attempting to help the lay reader understand what a neobank is.
Interestingly they provided a list of cards that weren't accepted (and didn't qualify that with 'such as') that included Monzo and Revolut and some others I haven't heard of but First Direct is not listed.
My view is that they have been insufficiently clear in the T&Cs and have relied on 'online-only' equating to 'no physical branches'. If they had said 'online or telephone only' then I would have cancelled it straight away.
They offered a refund minus cancellation fee but I have not accepted it because as far as I'm concerned I have complied with their terms and they haven't provided the service, they cancelled it not me. I had to hire a car with a competitor directly at roughly double the charge due to availability so I will amuse myself attempting to recover the full cost (I know they aren't liable for that but I shall enjoy myself wasting a lot of their time).
Also a warning to others going to Europe - apparently this is a relatively new thing due to problems with getting correct payments from some of the neobanks so please check your T&Cs carefully and First Direct may not be accepted.
First Direct operates under HSBC's banking licence, so they're wrong. ie First Direct is a trading name for HSBC
Can I ask the PB Legal Brains Trust for their view?
I've just returned from holiday in France, where my car hire booked via Booking.com was declined because the card I offered for the deposit was issued by First Direct. This was because it fell foul of the following requirement "Cards distributed by neobanks (online-only banks) are not accepted"
It never occurred to me that First Direct might fall into this category as it's certainly not a neobank and isn't even 'online-only' not least because it is also a telephone bank and in fact not quite all services are yet available online. And I've had my credit card with them since 1998 when online banks weren't even a thing! So I have raised a complaint and got a pushback but decided to leave it until I got back to pursue more vigorously rather than spoil my holiday .
(FWIW First Direct agreed with me as they agreed to challenge my card payment but whether they are prepared to say so in writing is of course a different matter).
So - a couple of questions:
1. Is there a legal definition of either 'neobank' or 'online-only'? I don't believe there is one
2. Does the fact that 'online-only' is in parentheses matter? My interpretation of that is that it is attempting to help the lay reader understand what a neobank is.
Interestingly they provided a list of cards that weren't accepted (and didn't qualify that with 'such as') that included Monzo and Revolut and some others I haven't heard of but First Direct is not listed.
My view is that they have been insufficiently clear in the T&Cs and have relied on 'online-only' equating to 'no physical branches'. If they had said 'online or telephone only' then I would have cancelled it straight away.
They offered a refund minus cancellation fee but I have not accepted it because as far as I'm concerned I have complied with their terms and they haven't provided the service, they cancelled it not me. I had to hire a car with a competitor directly at roughly double the charge due to availability so I will amuse myself attempting to recover the full cost (I know they aren't liable for that but I shall enjoy myself wasting a lot of their time).
Also a warning to others going to Europe - apparently this is a relatively new thing due to problems with getting correct payments from some of the neobanks so please check your T&Cs carefully and First Direct may not be accepted.
Isn't First Direct just a brand used by HSBC? It was actually launched well before the internet banking days as a brand of Midland Bank, a name from the past, which was taken over by HSBC.
A take from a right winger (economically at any rate):
Come on. It's a silly post, but it's clearly not 'incitement' to anything. It's the sort of thing Lefties post when they're trying to be edgy. It's not meant to be taken absolutely literally. https://nitter.poast.org/K_Niemietz/status/2081811684608340418#m
But an enraged housewife's postings were? Sauce for the goose and all that.
Two wrongs don't make a right, we are taught that as children.
Agreed but both are wrong. Some on here seem to think it's ok if it's someone they don't like.
Can I ask the PB Legal Brains Trust for their view?
I've just returned from holiday in France, where my car hire booked via Booking.com was declined because the card I offered for the deposit was issued by First Direct. This was because it fell foul of the following requirement "Cards distributed by neobanks (online-only banks) are not accepted"
It never occurred to me that First Direct might fall into this category as it's certainly not a neobank and isn't even 'online-only' not least because it is also a telephone bank and in fact not quite all services are yet available online. And I've had my credit card with them since 1998 when online banks weren't even a thing! So I have raised a complaint and got a pushback but decided to leave it until I got back to pursue more vigorously rather than spoil my holiday .
(FWIW First Direct agreed with me as they agreed to challenge my card payment but whether they are prepared to say so in writing is of course a different matter).
So - a couple of questions:
1. Is there a legal definition of either 'neobank' or 'online-only'? I don't believe there is one
2. Does the fact that 'online-only' is in parentheses matter? My interpretation of that is that it is attempting to help the lay reader understand what a neobank is.
Interestingly they provided a list of cards that weren't accepted (and didn't qualify that with 'such as') that included Monzo and Revolut and some others I haven't heard of but First Direct is not listed.
My view is that they have been insufficiently clear in the T&Cs and have relied on 'online-only' equating to 'no physical branches'. If they had said 'online or telephone only' then I would have cancelled it straight away.
They offered a refund minus cancellation fee but I have not accepted it because as far as I'm concerned I have complied with their terms and they haven't provided the service, they cancelled it not me. I had to hire a car with a competitor directly at roughly double the charge due to availability so I will amuse myself attempting to recover the full cost (I know they aren't liable for that but I shall enjoy myself wasting a lot of their time).
Also a warning to others going to Europe - apparently this is a relatively new thing due to problems with getting correct payments from some of the neobanks so please check your T&Cs carefully and First Direct may not be accepted.
First Direct operates under HSBC's banking licence, so they're wrong. ie First Direct is a trading name for HSBC
Relevant text from Credit Card Ts&C's
How we’re authorised first direct is a division of HSBC UK Bank plc. HSBC UK Bank plc is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Our Financial Services Register number is 765112. You can check these details by visiting the Financial Conduct Authority’s website fca.org.uk or contacting them on 0800 111 6768. The Financial Conduct Authority is the supervisory authority under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Its address is 12 Endeavour Square, London, E20 1JN. HSBC UK Bank plc is a company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales with company registration number 09928412. Its registered office is at 1 Centenary Square, Birmingham, B1 1HQ. HSBC UK Bank plc’s registered VAT Number is GB 365684514.
Ginormous full moon out there tonight. If you own a pair of binoculars go and take a peek. You'll never have a better chance (except, maybe, tomorrow, but then it will be an hour later).
Is it that much bigger than 'normal'? I know there is variation.
A take from a right winger (economically at any rate):
Come on. It's a silly post, but it's clearly not 'incitement' to anything. It's the sort of thing Lefties post when they're trying to be edgy. It's not meant to be taken absolutely literally. https://nitter.poast.org/K_Niemietz/status/2081811684608340418#m
But an enraged housewife's postings were? Sauce for the goose and all that.
Two wrongs don't make a right, we are taught that as children.
Agreed but both are wrong. Some on here seem to think it's ok if it's someone they don't like.
You mean like saying that Graham Linehan telling his 600k followers to punch trans women "in the balls" is just a joke? As you were telling this forum *checks notes* two weeks ago?
A take from a right winger (economically at any rate):
Come on. It's a silly post, but it's clearly not 'incitement' to anything. It's the sort of thing Lefties post when they're trying to be edgy. It's not meant to be taken absolutely literally. https://nitter.poast.org/K_Niemietz/status/2081811684608340418#m
But an enraged housewife's postings were? Sauce for the goose and all that.
Two wrongs don't make a right, we are taught that as children.
Agreed but both are wrong. Some on here seem to think it's ok if it's someone they don't like.
You mean like saying that Graham Linehan telling his 600k followers to punch trans women "in the balls" is just a joke? As you were telling this forum *checks notes* two weeks ago?
Fair point. He was not, however, saying 'kill them', as in the current farago.
Can someone explain to me how lyrics from a song in 1979 and a cartoon of a head chopping device from 1789 can apparently be incitement to murder someone not named in 2026?
How many Nigels do you know ?
I don't think it's criminal, but it is highly irresponsible from a supposedly senior politician.
It's song lyrics. From a classic band. In what way can the "Nigel" referred to possibly be Farage?
Are there any other song lyrics that Reform want to have banned from t-shirts?
The people who sold it have other anti-racist t-shirts, and while they don't explicitly mention Farage, they suggest it's "A cryptic design for difficult times". So fairly obvious, but trying to cover themselves, and also now taken off sale on their own site.
I find it hugely offensive, but clearly it's more of a joke than the Lucy Connelly tweet (although I don't think she should have ended up in prison either).
If it's true that Polanski shared it as one of a package of 20+ photos, and deleted it as soon as it was pointed out, then I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't surprise me that he's got caught out like this though, and is probably strongly indicative of the Green's organisational competence right now.
Can I ask the PB Legal Brains Trust for their view?
I've just returned from holiday in France, where my car hire booked via Booking.com was declined because the card I offered for the deposit was issued by First Direct. This was because it fell foul of the following requirement "Cards distributed by neobanks (online-only banks) are not accepted"
It never occurred to me that First Direct might fall into this category as it's certainly not a neobank and isn't even 'online-only' not least because it is also a telephone bank and in fact not quite all services are yet available online. And I've had my credit card with them since 1998 when online banks weren't even a thing! So I have raised a complaint and got a pushback but decided to leave it until I got back to pursue more vigorously rather than spoil my holiday .
(FWIW First Direct agreed with me as they agreed to challenge my card payment but whether they are prepared to say so in writing is of course a different matter).
So - a couple of questions:
1. Is there a legal definition of either 'neobank' or 'online-only'? I don't believe there is one
2. Does the fact that 'online-only' is in parentheses matter? My interpretation of that is that it is attempting to help the lay reader understand what a neobank is.
Interestingly they provided a list of cards that weren't accepted (and didn't qualify that with 'such as') that included Monzo and Revolut and some others I haven't heard of but First Direct is not listed.
My view is that they have been insufficiently clear in the T&Cs and have relied on 'online-only' equating to 'no physical branches'. If they had said 'online or telephone only' then I would have cancelled it straight away.
They offered a refund minus cancellation fee but I have not accepted it because as far as I'm concerned I have complied with their terms and they haven't provided the service, they cancelled it not me. I had to hire a car with a competitor directly at roughly double the charge due to availability so I will amuse myself attempting to recover the full cost (I know they aren't liable for that but I shall enjoy myself wasting a lot of their time).
Also a warning to others going to Europe - apparently this is a relatively new thing due to problems with getting correct payments from some of the neobanks so please check your T&Cs carefully and First Direct may not be accepted.
First Direct operates under HSBC's banking licence, so they're wrong. ie First Direct is a trading name for HSBC
Relevant text from Credit Card Ts&C's
How we’re authorised first direct is a division of HSBC UK Bank plc. HSBC UK Bank plc is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Our Financial Services Register number is 765112. You can check these details by visiting the Financial Conduct Authority’s website fca.org.uk or contacting them on 0800 111 6768. The Financial Conduct Authority is the supervisory authority under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Its address is 12 Endeavour Square, London, E20 1JN. HSBC UK Bank plc is a company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales with company registration number 09928412. Its registered office is at 1 Centenary Square, Birmingham, B1 1HQ. HSBC UK Bank plc’s registered VAT Number is GB 365684514.
Ginormous full moon out there tonight. If you own a pair of binoculars go and take a peek. You'll never have a better chance (except, maybe, tomorrow, but then it will be an hour later).
I love a full moon. Often it will be the moat beautiful thing I see on the day that I see it. Yet photos never do it justice. I am thinking of getting quite a powerful specialist lens purely to take photos of the full moon. Though there is something vaguely wonderful about beauty that cannot be captured and must only be remembered or described.
Can someone explain to me how lyrics from a song in 1979 and a cartoon of a head chopping device from 1789 can apparently be incitement to murder someone not named in 2026?
How many Nigels do you know ?
I don't think it's criminal, but it is highly irresponsible from a supposedly senior politician.
It's song lyrics. From a classic band. In what way can the "Nigel" referred to possibly be Farage?
Are there any other song lyrics that Reform want to have banned from t-shirts?
The people who sold it have other anti-racist t-shirts, and while they don't explicitly mention Farage, they suggest it's "A cryptic design for difficult times". So fairly obvious, but trying to cover themselves, and also now taken off sale on their own site.
I find it hugely offensive, but clearly it's more of a joke than the Lucy Connelly tweet (although I don't think she should have ended up in prison either).
If it's true that Polanski shared it as one of a package of 20+ photos, and deleted it as soon as it was pointed out, then I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't surprise me that he's got caught out like this though, and is probably strongly indicative of the Green's organisational competence right now.
Hard luck for the t-shirt company. They would have sold thousands with this kind of advertising!
If you are interested in the IQs of recent American politicians, do a search on their National Merit test results. Hillary Clinton, for example was, as I recall, a semi-finalist -- which means she passed the first test, but not the second.
(The US military also had (has?) a test which roughly measures IQ. As I recall, George W. Bush's result was about the equivalent of an IQ of 120, bright, but not a genius.)
Anyway, focusing on the important things about the header: 'Focussing' just looks wrong to me.
Lots of language points today, which is great. Focusing and focussing are both OK. The logic behind the double s is that you often double the final consonant when adding a suffix, eg sit / sitting.
I accept both are 'allowed' but generally for words with two or more syllables you only double the final consonant if the stress falls on the very last syllable. That's not happening with focusing. (Not when I am listening anyway.)
Agreed; the double s just looks wrong to me. But it's a matter of taste.
Me too, though in principle I support the idea of using the older British English spelling.
The mullahs only need to fuck around another 100 days and they will be through the midterms - with Trump and his whole cabal facing impeachment hearings...
Can someone explain to me how lyrics from a song in 1979 and a cartoon of a head chopping device from 1789 can apparently be incitement to murder someone not named in 2026?
How many Nigels do you know ?
I don't think it's criminal, but it is highly irresponsible from a supposedly senior politician.
It's song lyrics. From a classic band. In what way can the "Nigel" referred to possibly be Farage?
Are there any other song lyrics that Reform want to have banned from t-shirts?
The people who sold it have other anti-racist t-shirts, and while they don't explicitly mention Farage, they suggest it's "A cryptic design for difficult times". So fairly obvious, but trying to cover themselves, and also now taken off sale on their own site.
I find it hugely offensive, but clearly it's more of a joke than the Lucy Connelly tweet (although I don't think she should have ended up in prison either).
If it's true that Polanski shared it as one of a package of 20+ photos, and deleted it as soon as it was pointed out, then I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't surprise me that he's got caught out like this though, and is probably strongly indicative of the Green's organisational competence right now.
Reposting a package of photographs with no checks is HORRIBLY amateurish, regardless of the rest.
The mullahs only need to fuck around another 100 days and they will be through the midterms - with Trump and his whole cabal facing impeachment hearings...
Apart from the issue of the elections being rigged and/or not certified and other crap from Trump cult.
Ginormous full moon out there tonight. If you own a pair of binoculars go and take a peek. You'll never have a better chance (except, maybe, tomorrow, but then it will be an hour later).
I love a full moon. Often it will be the moat beautiful thing I see on the day that I see it. Yet photos never do it justice. I am thinking of getting quite a powerful specialist lens purely to take photos of the full moon. Though there is something vaguely wonderful about beauty that cannot be captured and must only be remembered or described.
I'm hoping to see an even greater spectacle when the moon has moved to the sunward side of the Earth in two weeks: the upcoming total solar eclipse, visible from northern Spain. Weather and wildfires permitting!
After days online spent debating whether Broadmoor was suitable for the criminal insane the online armchair psychiatry experts have moved effortlessly onto their new role as fire and forestry experts.
Is there no limit to these individual's range of skills?
After days online spent debating whether Broadmoor was suitable for the criminal insane the online armchair psychiatry experts have moved effortlessly onto their new role as fire and forestry experts.
Is there no limit to these individual's range of skills?
It's true that in some places they got rid of the firebreaks, which made it more difficult to stop wildfires. There was a report about this happening in the USA a few years ago IIRC.
Obloquy: are there any other examples in the English languages of a consonant following a 'qu'?
'qu' is a single phoneme, ie treat the letter combination as a single consonant. 'y' is a vowel here (and is more often a vowel than a consonant). So you have consonant followed by vowel, as is typical in English. Same as 'why'.
(May not have the terminology 100% but that's the idea)
Hmmm.
Qom is in the same category, but I assume that is transliterated Persian (?) .
We also have Al Quds, and Quran. And Qat, the drug plant from East Africa (?).
I think q represents a letter in the Arabic alphabet that is sounded in the throat. When you transliterate you are obliged to use one of the 26 letters in the Roman alphabet, or a combination of letters, and you want to distinguish every letter in the source alphabet. So Arabic has letters that are transliterated respectively q, k, kh, and there will be others. I assume Persian transliterates in a similar way but I know even less about it than Arabic. There's someone in this board who does speak good Arabic I believe - maybe they will opine with some authority.
The letter qaf (ق) is also in Persian and seems to be pronounced more like /G/ than /q/ but I am no expert on that (yet). There may be some dialectical differences in Persian of which I am ignorant.
After days online spent debating whether Broadmoor was suitable for the criminal insane the online armchair psychiatry experts have moved effortlessly onto their new role as fire and forestry experts.
Is there no limit to these individual's range of skills?
Pine is fire adapted (like eucalyptus, which is even more flammable), so yes, obviously it burns.
If you look at the roads west of Bordeaux they all seem to have extra wide mown verges which I assume is to form a firebreak, but once a big fire gets going those aren't going to stop it. Bracken is particularly good at lifting whilst burning and can jump fires at least 1km in strong winds.
I would think the most vulnerable forest in the UK is Thetford as it is a mix of sandy soils with Scots and Corsican pine.
I don't think you could grow deciduous woods very well on the sandy soils of Bordeaux or Breckland, so the idea you could have a deciduous forest instead doesn't really work.
I wonder who else is on the @Mexicanpete ”ok to joke about the ‘grim reaper’” list
Do you want to ‘upgrade’ to DuraPete?
You could always make like Nigel and report me to the Metropolitan police.
I haven't seen the X post in question but find it somewhat ironic that Nigel is so upset when he was quite content for Holiday Inn riots on the back of false X posts he made, he held Lucy Connolly up as a beacon of injustice and allegedly he helped himself to a wreath for a staged photoshoot at Ann Widdecome's home.
You don't like me posting on here, so the least you can do is demand a ban. Fill yer boots.
I wonder who else is on the @Mexicanpete ”ok to joke about the ‘grim reaper’” list
Hopefully nobody on PB... But it makes you wonder...
Where have I been offensive in the way you intimate to any poster on PB?
It's an online blog. One would have to be insane to take such a dislike to a stranger they have never met and are unlikely so to do. I wish you all well, whether you agree or disagree with my politics.
The nature of Polanski's post not withstanding I find Farage pretty much always calling himself out to be the victim very tiresome and very Trumpian.
Threats to kill is a free speech exemption in most cultures, even in the absolutist US.
I'm not sure that's true. It is famously a crime to threaten to kill POTUS, but for everybody else in the US I think there's the doctrine of immediate effect: threatening to kill X is a violation if you or somebody else is capable of doing so immediately, but not otherwise. Happy to be contradicted if wrong.
After days online spent debating whether Broadmoor was suitable for the criminal insane the online armchair psychiatry experts have moved effortlessly onto their new role as fire and forestry experts.
Is there no limit to these individual's range of skills?
Pine is fire adapted (like eucalyptus, which is even more flammable), so yes, obviously it burns.
If you look at the roads west of Bordeaux they all seem to have extra wide mown verges which I assume is to form a firebreak, but once a big fire gets going those aren't going to stop it. Bracken is particularly good at lifting whilst burning and can jump fires at least 1km in strong winds.
I would think the most vulnerable forest in the UK is Thetford as it is a mix of sandy soils with Scots and Corsican pine.
I don't think you could grow deciduous woods very well on the sandy soils of Bordeaux or Breckland, so the idea you could have a deciduous forest instead doesn't really work.
After days online spent debating whether Broadmoor was suitable for the criminal insane the online armchair psychiatry experts have moved effortlessly onto their new role as fire and forestry experts.
Is there no limit to these individual's range of skills?
Pine is fire adapted (like eucalyptus, which is even more flammable), so yes, obviously it burns.
If you look at the roads west of Bordeaux they all seem to have extra wide mown verges which I assume is to form a firebreak, but once a big fire gets going those aren't going to stop it. Bracken is particularly good at lifting whilst burning and can jump fires at least 1km in strong winds.
I would think the most vulnerable forest in the UK is Thetford as it is a mix of sandy soils with Scots and Corsican pine.
I don't think you could grow deciduous woods very well on the sandy soils of Bordeaux or Breckland, so the idea you could have a deciduous forest instead doesn't really work.
I wonder who else is on the @Mexicanpete ”ok to joke about the ‘grim reaper’” list
Hopefully nobody on PB... But it makes you wonder...
Where have I been offensive in the way you intimate to any poster on PB?
It's an online blog. One would have to be insane to take such a dislike to a stranger they have never met and are unlikely so to do. I wish you all well, whether you agree or disagree with my politics.
The nature of Polanski's post not withstanding I find Farage pretty much always calling himself out to be the victim very tiresome and very Trumpian.
I’d agree, but put a rider that given the recent murder it’s less twatty than usual.
“One would have to be insane to take such a dislike to a stranger they have never met and are unlikely so to do” - isn’t such insanity a basic feature of why online discourse can turn horrible?
There seem to be many on here who believe, or just parrot, that Kemi is anti human rights and anti the environment, because she wants out of the ECHR and Net Zero
Are the ECHR and Net Zero the only ways to get human rights and green policies (obviously unconnected to Green policies)?
No. The problem with the ECHR is that it's a living document, with future additions and amendments done by the judges in Strasbourg. This may result in findings that the British find unsatisfactory, and those only increase with time. The answer is to freeze it at a given moment (the British Fork, so to speak), respect the existing rights, and any further amendments can then be incorporated by the British or ignored as Parliament decrees.
Problem is, the "ECHR departure" option tends to be invoked by politicians who would cheerfully deny the existing rights to their designated targets, which leads to discomfort with the electorate who aren't stupid.
This is an aspect of law (living document amended by our bottom up legal system) which should be investigated further rather than trading sound bites. Exactly the sort of issue the Law Commission should get involved in. It is almost certain there will be a British 'fork' so having the LC look at it would avoid the sort of knee jerk decisions over Brexit and the subsequent Windsor Framework.
After days online spent debating whether Broadmoor was suitable for the criminal insane the online armchair psychiatry experts have moved effortlessly onto their new role as fire and forestry experts.
Is there no limit to these individual's range of skills?
When were these trees planted and or how many decades / centuries have they been commercially forested?
Then ask yourself how long insane delinquent idiots like yourself and the majority of Right Wing deniers, have been making any and every excuse for Climate Change?
There seem to be many on here who believe, or just parrot, that Kemi is anti human rights and anti the environment, because she wants out of the ECHR and Net Zero
Are the ECHR and Net Zero the only ways to get human rights and green policies (obviously unconnected to Green policies)?
No. The problem with the ECHR is that it's a living document, with future additions and amendments done by the judges in Strasbourg. This may result in findings that the British find unsatisfactory, and those only increase with time. The answer is to freeze it at a given moment (the British Fork, so to speak), respect the existing rights, and any further amendments can then be incorporated by the British or ignored as Parliament decrees.
Problem is, the "ECHR departure" option tends to be invoked by politicians who would cheerfully deny the existing rights to their designated targets, which leads to discomfort with the electorate who aren't stupid.
This is an aspect of law (living document amended by our bottom up legal system) which should be investigated further rather than trading sound bites. Exactly the sort of issue the Law Commission should get involved in. It is almost certain there will be a British 'fork' so having the LC look at it would avoid the sort of knee jerk decisions over Brexit and the subsequent Windsor Framework.
Note Reform’s idea to deal with the immigration issue - appoint 10k immigration “judges”* they approve of.
Once you control the judges in a “living law” context, you control the law.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called for Prime Minister Andy Burnham to bring in emergency legislation in order to stop the early release of hundreds of prisoners.
More unserious politics from Badenoch. Why is legislation needed?
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called for Prime Minister Andy Burnham to bring in emergency legislation in order to stop the early release of hundreds of prisoners.
More unserious politics from Badenoch. Why is legislation needed?
The Tories did nothing for 14 years and let the prison system collapse and now she’s playing pathetic games .
The mullahs only need to fuck around another 100 days and they will be through the midterms - with Trump and his whole cabal facing impeachment hearings...
I'd hope the Dems would do something productive, but you're probably right that they're going to waste a whole lot of Congressional time on this.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called for Prime Minister Andy Burnham to bring in emergency legislation in order to stop the early release of hundreds of prisoners.
More unserious politics from Badenoch. Why is legislation needed?
She is correct that to permanently stop the scheme, primary legislation is required. The implementation of the scheme could be temporarily delayed without it, however.
The scheme is due to start the day after Parliament returns from recess. The government is currently reviewing the scheme.
Her point is that it leaves very little time for the implementation to be scrapped or delayed, leaving the families of victims with greater uncertainty while the review takes place.
More evidence of the role of misinformation in driving xenophobia.
Do they massively overestimate the numbers of English as well? Or just become weirdly obsessive with false narratives around wind power and water supplies?
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called for Prime Minister Andy Burnham to bring in emergency legislation in order to stop the early release of hundreds of prisoners.
More unserious politics from Badenoch. Why is legislation needed?
She is correct that to permanently stop the scheme, primary legislation is required. The implementation of the scheme could be temporarily delayed without it, however.
The scheme is due to start the day after Parliament returns from recess. The government is currently reviewing the scheme.
Her point is that it leaves very little time for the implementation to be scrapped or delayed, leaving the families of victims with greater uncertainty while the review takes place.
The main point, which everyone seems to be ignoring, is that you can pass all the laws you like but unless you have a different solution to the current lack of capacity in the prison system it makes precisely fuck all difference.
After days online spent debating whether Broadmoor was suitable for the criminal insane the online armchair psychiatry experts have moved effortlessly onto their new role as fire and forestry experts.
Is there no limit to these individual's range of skills?
Comments
@Saltburncc First slip clicks his fingers to imitate an edge, bat nowhere near it and given out.
This is about the worst case of cheating I’ve ever seen in cricket.
Apparently, their keeper has a huge amount of catches this season.
@talkSPORT
@bbctms
@SkyCricket
@TailendersPod
https://x.com/Dan1290_/status/2081764958090449140
https://x.com/i/trending/2081776270681989448
And then it turned out just to be a ticker-tape feed of sh*te - and here we are with 'flagship' news programmes amounting to a presenters smirking to camera "But... they said.... Tomat-ah! What do you say about that, Minster?".
227 * 3 = 1398 is an indicator of Oxford followed by a career in the media.
(I trust I am being wound up.)
But there, we aspire to Cleese.
I don't think it's criminal, but it is highly irresponsible from a supposedly senior politician.
I know He is today's political hot property, but he wasn't in 1979.
Are there any other song lyrics that Reform want to have banned from t-shirts?
"Quy can refer to a Vietnamese name meaning precious or noble, a village in Cambridgeshire, England, or a Chinese mythological turtle."
I see Pakistan collapsed from 244/3 to 282 all out.
Putting that phrase alongside a guillotine - now, not in 1979 - is not exactly ambiguous.
Which is why Polanski has apologised.
The issue is what's in those deals, and each side selling those deals back home. Trump has such a hold on his party most of them will take anything he says, but not all will.
Come on. It's a silly post, but it's clearly not 'incitement' to anything.
It's the sort of thing Lefties post when they're trying to be edgy. It's not meant to be taken absolutely literally.
https://nitter.poast.org/K_Niemietz/status/2081811684608340418#m
'Shortly after tea, Mr Boycott ran a single to long off to complete his century in a little over seven years of batting.'
It probably did feel like that sometimes...
Just a tweet bro.
(I have only just realised that half decent is much better than semi-decent when assessing quality. In fact they are almost opposites....)
Bunfight at the OK Tea Rooms:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2uv92d
Gym sketch (the one with the Bucking Bronco vaulting horse):
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x883r3e
There are a number but they are mainly poor quality - I'd say VHS.
https://www.dailymotion.com/search/the goodies/top-results
There's Puppet Power with Dougal and Zebedee demolishing Chequers, but that is not good.
I was looking for the Flying Dodo.
https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/england-drop-lsquo-selfish-rsquo-geoff-boycott-after-the-opener-crawls-to-an-unbeaten-246-27653/
Not quite Bazball....
The Goodies doing cricket commentary, introducing an alien to the MCC:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2o4vm8
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-baby-names-nigel-popularity-b1940868.html
Trump has lost this war. Every renegotiation leads to further surrender. Of course, he may order a massive attack, or even a nuclear strike, in ultimate exasperation, but unlike 1945 this would be an admission of failure that all the world will recognise.
I've just returned from holiday in France, where my car hire booked via Booking.com was declined because the card I offered for the deposit was issued by First Direct. This was because it fell foul of the following requirement "Cards distributed by neobanks (online-only banks) are not accepted"
It never occurred to me that First Direct might fall into this category as it's certainly not a neobank and isn't even 'online-only' not least because it is also a telephone bank and in fact not quite all services are yet available online. And I've had my credit card with them since 1998 when online banks weren't even a thing! So I have raised a complaint and got a pushback but decided to leave it until I got back to pursue more vigorously rather than spoil my holiday .
(FWIW First Direct agreed with me as they agreed to challenge my card payment but whether they are prepared to say so in writing is of course a different matter).
So - a couple of questions:
1. Is there a legal definition of either 'neobank' or 'online-only'? I don't believe there is one
2. Does the fact that 'online-only' is in parentheses matter? My interpretation of that is that it is attempting to help the lay reader understand what a neobank is.
Interestingly they provided a list of cards that weren't accepted (and didn't qualify that with 'such as') that included Monzo and Revolut and some others I haven't heard of but First Direct is not listed.
My view is that they have been insufficiently clear in the T&Cs and have relied on 'online-only' equating to 'no physical branches'. If they had said 'online or telephone only' then I would have cancelled it straight away.
They offered a refund minus cancellation fee but I have not accepted it because as far as I'm concerned I have complied with their terms and they haven't provided the service, they cancelled it not me. I had to hire a car with a competitor directly at roughly double the charge due to availability so I will amuse myself attempting to recover the full cost (I know they aren't liable for that but I shall enjoy myself wasting a lot of their time).
Also a warning to others going to Europe - apparently this is a relatively new thing due to problems with getting correct payments from some of the neobanks so please check your T&Cs carefully and First Direct may not be accepted.
We just hit 2 months with no UK SSN at sea.
https://x.com/TBrit90/status/2081796971904336021
(I don't agree with him, unless maybe Polanski can show it is a genuine mistake - but my view is that this is for the police to determine. I'd accept that both sides to an extent tend to spend their time trying to walk the line without crossing it - my own MP does it *, but I put quite a weight on our current febrile politics and the importance of keeping them calm.)
* He's currently cross that our local newspaper has clipped some inflammatory material on this matter from his column.
Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش
@citrinowicz
https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2081842994773201216
Aint that the truth an' all.
How we’re authorised
first direct is a division of HSBC UK Bank plc. HSBC UK Bank plc is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Our Financial Services Register number is 765112. You can check these details by visiting the Financial Conduct Authority’s website fca.org.uk or contacting them on 0800 111 6768.
The Financial Conduct Authority is the supervisory authority under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Its address is 12 Endeavour Square, London, E20 1JN.
HSBC UK Bank plc is a company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales with company registration number 09928412. Its registered office is at 1 Centenary Square, Birmingham, B1 1HQ.
HSBC UK Bank plc’s registered VAT Number is GB 365684514.
https://www.firstdirect.com/legals/terms-and-conditions/
Zia Yusuf
@ZiaYusufUK
If Zack Polanski is not in police custody by this time tomorrow, the Police will have declared open season on Members of Parliament.
https://x.com/ZiaYusufUK/status/2081841095785259122
I find it hugely offensive, but clearly it's more of a joke than the Lucy Connelly tweet (although I don't think she should have ended up in prison either).
If it's true that Polanski shared it as one of a package of 20+ photos, and deleted it as soon as it was pointed out, then I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't surprise me that he's got caught out like this though, and is probably strongly indicative of the Green's organisational competence right now.
Yourself.
It's the only sane option.
Though there is something vaguely wonderful about beauty that cannot be captured and must only be remembered or described.
https://x.com/richardmarcj/status/2081733878851510349/photo/1
T Ben Houchen to introduce TeesBacc offering courses in financial mismanagement and land decontamination
You can find some other prominent politicians in this Wikipedia article, including one of my favorites, Mitch Daniels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Merit_Scholarship_Program
(The US military also had (has?) a test which roughly measures IQ. As I recall, George W. Bush's result was about the equivalent of an IQ of 120, bright, but not a genius.)
Is there no limit to these individual's range of skills?
Allison Pearson
@AllisonPearson
How many of the wildfires are caused by poor forestry?
Deciduous woods seem to burn far less than pine trees.
In Turkey, they have huge firebreaks between the trees.
https://x.com/AllisonPearson/status/2081801009689514212
The letter qaf (ق) is also in Persian and seems to be pronounced more like /G/ than /q/ but I am no expert on that (yet). There may be some dialectical differences in Persian of which I am ignorant.
If you look at the roads west of Bordeaux they all seem to have extra wide mown verges which I assume is to form a firebreak, but once a big fire gets going those aren't going to stop it. Bracken is particularly good at lifting whilst burning and can jump fires at least 1km in strong winds.
I would think the most vulnerable forest in the UK is Thetford as it is a mix of sandy soils with Scots and Corsican pine.
I don't think you could grow deciduous woods very well on the sandy soils of Bordeaux or Breckland, so the idea you could have a deciduous forest instead doesn't really work.
https://www.itv.com/news/2026-07-27/police-looking-into-polanski-post-after-complaints-by-reform-uk
I haven't seen the X post in question but find it somewhat ironic that Nigel is so upset when he was quite content for Holiday Inn riots on the back of false X posts he made, he held Lucy Connolly up as a beacon of injustice and allegedly he helped himself to a wreath for a staged photoshoot at Ann Widdecome's home.
You don't like me posting on here, so the least you can do is demand a ban. Fill yer boots.
It's an online blog. One would have to be insane to take such a dislike to a stranger they have never met and are unlikely so to do. I wish you all well, whether you agree or disagree with my politics.
The nature of Polanski's post not withstanding I find Farage pretty much always calling himself out to be the victim very tiresome and very Trumpian.
https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/marie-le-conte-kemi-badenochs-incredible-shrinking-tory-party/
“One would have to be insane to take such a dislike to a stranger they have never met and are unlikely so to do” - isn’t such insanity a basic feature of why online discourse can turn horrible?
Ask your single brain cell a simple question.
When were these trees planted and or how many decades / centuries have they been commercially forested?
Then ask yourself how long insane delinquent idiots like yourself and the majority of Right Wing deniers, have been making any and every excuse for Climate Change?
Once you control the judges in a “living law” context, you control the law.
"Weep for the future, Na'Toth. Weep for us all,"
*they are really adjudicators.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called for Prime Minister Andy Burnham to bring in emergency legislation in order to stop the early release of hundreds of prisoners.
More unserious politics from Badenoch. Why is legislation needed?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/westminster/26413214.poll-finds-scots-massively-overestimate-refugee-numbers/
More evidence of the role of misinformation in driving xenophobia.
The scheme is due to start the day after Parliament returns from recess. The government is currently reviewing the scheme.
Her point is that it leaves very little time for the implementation to be scrapped or delayed, leaving the families of victims with greater uncertainty while the review takes place.