Mr. Walker, if you want to have a pissing contest about how terribly 'umble we are, I suspect I'd win by a country mile due to my current less than wondrous circumstances. But, as it doesn't matter a jot when it comes to how well-reasoned or not an argument is, banging on about wealth to attempt to prove or disprove the value of a debating position is a vain endeavour.
Incidentally, I also asked Miss Anazina if any of those little descriptions were meant to apply to me. Maybe there was a reply, but I missed it, if so.
Agree very much with your first paragraph, but given the wall to wall bragging on here about how rich we all are, a large number of people don't seem to concur. In summary there are three groups of people on here at the moment who really piss me off or really amuse me, depending on mood.
1. The expat Brexiters - see previous comments
2. The plastic pretend Brexiters - people like HYUFD, BigG and Carlotta Vance who were avid Remainers before the vote but have now made a May-esque Damascine conversion to Brexit and belittle "Remoaners" with the best of them. Their lack of principle and backbone is pathetic.
3. The look how rich and smart I am braggers - gold medal SeanT, runners up TSE, Charles, DavidL, Robert Smithson, Casino Royale and Richard Navabi
The large number of principled Leavers on here such as yourself, Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall I have a sneaking respect for despite disagreeing with your views.
I see fervent ad homs are flying around today. What has got up the noses of the PB Remainers?
The usual stuff! But I think it started as a chain on how odd it was that so many Brexiters seem to post from abroad.
This Brexiteer has been posting from Deepest Dorset since, well, since I've been posting....
I’m happy to put my hand up to dwelling in absolute deepest Remainia.
Although I’m currently relaxing in a remote pocket of the Weald. Idyllic.
Enjoy! As much as I can moan about things (such as the EU's dreadfully poorly drafted attempt to reduce smuggling of conflict antiquities that is currently threatening to require import paperwork for any book published before 1768 anywhere - https://blog.vialibri.net/new-eu-anti-terror-import-regulations-will-target-bibliophiles/), I am truly blessed - doing a job I love and living in a beautiful part of the world. Today we received a volume of Kipling's poetry once in T.E. Lawrence's library at Clouds Hill, and right now I'm cataloguing an anti-Jacobite poem which quotes, beautifully, on the title page, from Hudibras:
'For Fools are Stubborn in their Way, As Coins are hardned by th'Allay, And Obstinancy ne'r so stiff, As when 'tis in a wrong belief'
How could that not make PBers laugh - I'm sure we've all been truly obstinate about something only later to be proven wrong....
Of course with that profile and all those numbers after her name, Ms joannem07254906 may be a bot herself.
Without meaning to attempt any doxxing, I'd reckon that her birthdate is 25th July 1996, and that 40 is a special number for her (house number, or perhaps her IQ).
An American bot?
Well, if she was a techie she'd have used the one true date fiomat: 19960725
Or is she was really geeky: 2450289.5 (extra points for anyone who knows what that is)
Seconds since epoch, please.
Edit: Julian date although I prefer the modified version, far less unwieldy
Ah, but which epoch? Unix, .NET or (shudders) Windows?
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
I believe it is correct that the commission use the latest register. Which I believe they did at the commencement of the review.
Time for another review before the next election then.
The redrawing should be done in the aftermath of the most recent GE, not based on out of date registrations, and not at the timetable of the governing party.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
I believe it is correct that the commission use the latest register. Which I believe they did at the commencement of the review.
Time for another review before the next election then.
The redrawing should be done in the aftermath of the most recent GE, not based on out of date registrations, and not at the timetable of the governing party.
Yes, it should be periodic (the clue is in the name). Shame the Lib Dems chucked their toys out of the pram on this one.
Of course with that profile and all those numbers after her name, Ms joannem07254906 may be a bot herself.
Without meaning to attempt any doxxing, I'd reckon that her birthdate is 25th July 1996, and that 40 is a special number for her (house number, or perhaps her IQ).
An American bot?
Well, if she was a techie she'd have used the one true date fiomat: 19960725
Or is she was really geeky: 2450289.5 (extra points for anyone who knows what that is)
Seconds since epoch, please.
Edit: Julian date although I prefer the modified version, far less unwieldy
Ah, but which epoch? Unix, .NET or (shudders) Windows?
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
Wasn't there an article suggesting most 'new' registrations are nothing of the kind, and that most who 'register to vote' near an election are already registered to vote....?
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
Wasn't there an article suggesting most 'new' registrations are nothing of the kind, and that most who 'register to vote' near an election are already registered to vote....?
Shouldn't be a problem then.
Neither a problem, nor an issue....
The review has processes; those who want to interfere with an independent body need a new dictionary, evidently.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
Wasn't there an article suggesting most 'new' registrations are nothing of the kind, and that most who 'register to vote' near an election are already registered to vote....?
Shouldn't be a problem then.
Neither a problem, nor an issue....
The review has processes; those who want to interfere with an independent body need a new dictionary, evidently.
Well Tories should fear when the boot is on the other foot then. Turnabout is fair play.
That is why the rules should be bipartisan and fair, not under the control of the government.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
Wasn't there an article suggesting most 'new' registrations are nothing of the kind, and that most who 'register to vote' near an election are already registered to vote....?
Shouldn't be a problem then.
Neither a problem, nor an issue....
The review has processes; those who want to interfere with an independent body need a new dictionary, evidently.
Well Tories should fear when the boot is on the other foot then. Turnabout is fair play.
That is why the rules should be bipartisan and fair, not under the control of the government.
If only Britain were a member of a large close and deep international grouping that could effectively take collective action.
Do you mean NATO or the UN?
The UN?
You are taking the piss, right?
That's an organisation that makes the EU look principled and effective.
Some parts of the UN do good work (e.g. polio). But when it comes to international relations, and especially keeping the peace, they've been terribly ineffective. It's a well-meaning but ineffectual organisation when it comes to the big-ticket items.
I was amused to see one prominent leaver's vision for the future of the UK's international relations was the UN and the Commonwealth.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
Wasn't there an article suggesting most 'new' registrations are nothing of the kind, and that most who 'register to vote' near an election are already registered to vote....?
Shouldn't be a problem then.
They aren't disenfranchised so can still vote in the election. If there are a lot of them the constituency they are in will be 'over' populated, assuming others haven't left the constituency to vacate accommodation for the new registrants.
I suspect it is a problem that is easily given greater attention than the probably minor effect deserves.
I see fervent ad homs are flying around today. What has got up the noses of the PB Remainers?
The usual stuff! But I think it started as a chain on how odd it was that so many Brexiters seem to post from abroad.
This Brexiteer has been posting from Deepest Dorset since, well, since I've been posting....
I’m happy to put my hand up to dwelling in absolute deepest Remainia.
Although I’m currently relaxing in a remote pocket of the Weald. Idyllic.
Enjoy! As much as I can moan about things (such as the EU's dreadfully poorly drafted attempt to reduce smuggling of conflict antiquities that is currently threatening to require import paperwork for any book published before 1768 anywhere - https://blog.vialibri.net/new-eu-anti-terror-import-regulations-will-target-bibliophiles/), I am truly blessed - doing a job I love and living in a beautiful part of the world. Today we received a volume of Kipling's poetry once in T.E. Lawrence's library at Clouds Hill, and right now I'm cataloguing an anti-Jacobite poem which quotes, beautifully, on the title page, from Hudibras:
'For Fools are Stubborn in their Way, As Coins are hardned by th'Allay, And Obstinancy ne'r so stiff, As when 'tis in a wrong belief'
How could that not make PBers laugh - I'm sure we've all been truly obstinate about something only later to be proven wrong....
Thank-you for sharing.
Yes, you do seem to live a blessed existence, and I am one - I’m sure - of many PBers who envy you!
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
Wasn't there an article suggesting most 'new' registrations are nothing of the kind, and that most who 'register to vote' near an election are already registered to vote....?
Shouldn't be a problem then.
Neither a problem, nor an issue....
The review has processes; those who want to interfere with an independent body need a new dictionary, evidently.
Well Tories should fear when the boot is on the other foot then. Turnabout is fair play.
That is why the rules should be bipartisan and fair, not under the control of the government.
Why should we fear, does 'Change is coming' mean the replacement of independent bodies with government diktat?
Isn't it a little rich Amber Rudd trying to take the moral high ground? Isn't this what spies are supposed to expect?
Perhaps instead of haranguing the Russians she could tell Mi5 that if they must recruit Russians to spy for them at least they could take the trouble to keep them safe
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
Wasn't there an article suggesting most 'new' registrations are nothing of the kind, and that most who 'register to vote' near an election are already registered to vote....?
Shouldn't be a problem then.
Neither a problem, nor an issue....
The review has processes; those who want to interfere with an independent body need a new dictionary, evidently.
Well Tories should fear when the boot is on the other foot then. Turnabout is fair play.
That is why the rules should be bipartisan and fair, not under the control of the government.
Why should we fear, does 'Change is coming' mean the replacement of independent bodies with government diktat?
Nope, but when the government sets the rules for an independent body, it can set new rules.
Of course with that profile and all those numbers after her name, Ms joannem07254906 may be a bot herself.
Without meaning to attempt any doxxing, I'd reckon that her birthdate is 25th July 1996, and that 40 is a special number for her (house number, or perhaps her IQ).
An American bot?
Well, if she was a techie she'd have used the one true date fiomat: 19960725
Or is she was really geeky: 2450289.5 (extra points for anyone who knows what that is)
Seconds since epoch, please.
Edit: Julian date although I prefer the modified version, far less unwieldy
Ah, but which epoch? Unix, .NET or (shudders) Windows?
Isn't it a little rich Amber Rudd trying to take the moral high ground? Isn't this what spies are supposed to expect?
Perhaps instead of haranguing the Russians she could tell Mi5 that if they must recruit Russians to spy for them at least they could take the trouble to keep them safe
You may not have noticed Roger but there is more than one person in hospital, so even if you think "he had it coming", what about his daughter and the police officer?
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
I believe it is correct that the commission use the latest register. Which I believe they did at the commencement of the review.
Time for another review before the next election then.
The redrawing should be done in the aftermath of the most recent GE, not based on out of date registrations, and not at the timetable of the governing party.
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
It's pretty easy to zone out the perspective of Alastair and OGH, and the trolling of TSE.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
Wasn't there an article suggesting most 'new' registrations are nothing of the kind, and that most who 'register to vote' near an election are already registered to vote....?
Shouldn't be a problem then.
Neither a problem, nor an issue....
The review has processes; those who want to interfere with an independent body need a new dictionary, evidently.
Well Tories should fear when the boot is on the other foot then. Turnabout is fair play.
That is why the rules should be bipartisan and fair, not under the control of the government.
To my knowledge, the only party that has blocked boundary changes is the Lib Dems.
Isn't it a little rich Amber Rudd trying to take the moral high ground? Isn't this what spies are supposed to expect?
Perhaps instead of haranguing the Russians she could tell Mi5 that if they must recruit Russians to spy for them at least they could take the trouble to keep them safe
Also UK-Russian relations could 'merely' be restored to the level they stood at during the Cold War:
It's not as if the UK was 'soft'. It was well aware of what the Russian armed forces were up to in eastern Europe. But it didn't stop normal diplomatic courtesies being observed.
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
The people did no such thing. A minority of the eligible population voted for it, by a narrow margin. The idea that it was some sort of people's revolution is ludicrous. It should be followed through, as those were the rules at the time, but it doesn't mean that criticising it is invalid.
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
Isn't it a little rich Amber Rudd trying to take the moral high ground? Isn't this what spies are supposed to expect?
Perhaps instead of haranguing the Russians she could tell Mi5 that if they must recruit Russians to spy for them at least they could take the trouble to keep them safe
You may not have noticed Roger but there is more than one person in hospital, so even if you think "he had it coming", what about his daughter and the police officer?
If you're prepared to get involved in this murky world a certain amount of collateral damage is to be expected. It's the Home Office who should be answering the questions and when things settle down I hope they will be
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
No it doesn't. Genuinely I would be interested in hearing the practical benefits of Brexit, now it's definitely going ahead, because I am not aware of any.
If you're prepared to get involved in this murky world a certain amount of collateral damage is to be expected. It's the Home Office who should be answering the questions and when things settle down I hope they will be
Personally I think the people who have ordered and carried out these murderous attacks are the ones who should be questioned, but I'm funny like that.
The Kremlin doesn't need bots in the UK when our own people trot out their lines at a drop of a hat.
Isn't it a little rich Amber Rudd trying to take the moral high ground? Isn't this what spies are supposed to expect?
Perhaps instead of haranguing the Russians she could tell Mi5 that if they must recruit Russians to spy for them at least they could take the trouble to keep them safe
You may not have noticed Roger but there is more than one person in hospital, so even if you think "he had it coming", what about his daughter and the police officer?
If you're prepared to get involved in this murky world a certain amount of collateral damage is to be expected. It's the Home Office who should be answering the questions and when things settle down I hope they will be
Russian spies approached by MI5 may well be having second thoughts. Putin certainly serves his revenge up cold.
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
Isn't it a little rich Amber Rudd trying to take the moral high ground? Isn't this what spies are supposed to expect?
Perhaps instead of haranguing the Russians she could tell Mi5 that if they must recruit Russians to spy for them at least they could take the trouble to keep them safe
Isn't it a little rich Amber Rudd trying to take the moral high ground? Isn't this what spies are supposed to expect?
Perhaps instead of haranguing the Russians she could tell Mi5 that if they must recruit Russians to spy for them at least they could take the trouble to keep them safe
Also UK-Russian relations could 'merely' be restored to the level they stood at during the Cold War:
It's not as if the UK was 'soft'. It was well aware of what the Russian armed forces were up to in eastern Europe. But it didn't stop normal diplomatic courtesies being observed.
Exactly. She should have simply said 'it's a fair cop guv. But I'm afraid Boris refuses to play tennis with the Ambasssador's wife but we will return her £160,000.'
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
The people did no such thing. A minority of the eligible population voted for it, by a narrow margin. The idea that it was some sort of people's revolution is ludicrous. It should be followed through, as those were the rules at the time, but it doesn't mean that criticising it is invalid.
The views of those that couldn't be arsed to vote are irrelevant.
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
Brexit only has downsides. How is anyone supposed to "balance" that?
I like Musk's vision, and the way he's going for it. I'm just not a fanboy, and think he's rather disingenuous when it comes to Tesla.
Now, my real nemesis was Jobs. He was truly a man who did f'all good with his billions, and his company is so evil that the building he designs hospitalises his employees. As ever with Apple, style over substance.
Of course with that profile and all those numbers after her name, Ms joannem07254906 may be a bot herself.
Without meaning to attempt any doxxing, I'd reckon that her birthdate is 25th July 1996, and that 40 is a special number for her (house number, or perhaps her IQ).
Or the fist 8 digits of her mobile number 0725 490 6xxx
To be fair, the comment about Boris J is appropriate.
We have fucked up so badly that I don't see how whichever of the HS or FS has responsibility for the relevant skulduggery, is not standing down. We presumably as a nation guaranteed this guy's safety under the deal which brought him here, and we fell down on the guarantee. And if anyone wants to take the repulsive line that that's ok because he is Russian a traitor, etc, we have also collaterally endangered the lives of UK citizens exposed to all these poisons and nerve agents.
OK! Seriously off topic, just been listening to H2G2 (Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy) on R4 new series, and found out that the new Voice of the book is Professor Stephen Hawking. Sorry, but I was laughing for several minutes at just that piece of information in the general madness
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
Brexit only has downsides. How is anyone supposed to "balance" that?
The upsides of Brexit are long term, and somewhat hypothetical. The betting angle is that the government are weak. Divided. Under siege. Will they survive? Etc.
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
No it doesn't. Genuinely I would be interested in hearing the practical benefits of Brexit, now it's definitely going ahead, because I am not aware of any.
The only one I can honestly think of is that we gain greater control of some 50% of net immigration. Actually, it’s now closer to about 20%.
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
Brexit only has downsides. How is anyone supposed to "balance" that?
Want to bet on a non-existent upside? If you put together some sort of terms for a bet that will win on your 'only downsides' proposition then I'll bet something beyond a gentlemanly consideration.
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
If only she were more ruthless.
1.Order Order is not a reliable source
2. If it were true Labour working for a soft BREXIT is probably acceptable to Lab leavers and Remainers.
To be fair, the comment about Boris J is appropriate.
We have fucked up so badly that I don't see how whichever of the HS or FS has responsibility for the relevant skulduggery, is not standing down. We presumably as a nation guaranteed this guy's safety under the deal which brought him here, and we fell down on the guarantee. And if anyone wants to take the repulsive line that that's ok because he is Russian a traitor, etc, we have also collaterally endangered the lives of UK citizens exposed to all these poisons and nerve agents.
It's worth bearing in mind that Skripal was convicted, imprisoned, pardoned, and then exchanged along with some other agents for Russian spies. He was presumably living openly because it was assumed that the Russians had already dealt with him. It's quite different from agents that the UK has exfiltrated and then gone to great lengths to hide.
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
If only she were more ruthless.
TMay is seemingly trying to undermine her own government, Corbyn is standing on the sidelines enjoying the spectacle. Nothing to stop him talking to the otherside in the meantime, to make some sense of her incompetence, he after all, as many so eloquently and oft remind us all, is not PM....
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
If only she were more ruthless.
It does sound as if Starmer has progressed negotiations further than DD can. Perhaps it just shows how far a consensual rather than confrontational approach can go.
To be fair, the comment about Boris J is appropriate.
We have fucked up so badly that I don't see how whichever of the HS or FS has responsibility for the relevant skulduggery, is not standing down. We presumably as a nation guaranteed this guy's safety under the deal which brought him here, and we fell down on the guarantee. And if anyone wants to take the repulsive line that that's ok because he is Russian a traitor, etc, we have also collaterally endangered the lives of UK citizens exposed to all these poisons and nerve agents.
It's worth bearing in mind that Skripal was convicted, imprisoned, pardoned, and then exchanged along with some other agents for Russian spies. He was presumably living openly because it was assumed that the Russians had already dealt with him. It's quite different from agents that the UK has exfiltrated and then gone to great lengths to hide.
I don't suppose there will be any more spy swaps.
Giggles! A recent incident in Syria when Syrian forces backed by Russian "mercenaries" got bombed to hell when they were about to try and capture a US/UK undercover base shows that the Cold War has actually returned. If the Syrians and Russians had captured the base, how long before do you think the show trials and subsequent exchanges would have taken place...
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
Brexit only has downsides. How is anyone supposed to "balance" that?
Want to bet on a non-existent upside? If you put together some sort of terms for a bet that will win on your 'only downsides' proposition then I'll bet something beyond a gentlemanly consideration.
I suppose you can always find an upside even amongst all the downsides - blue passports perhaps?
Of course with that profile and all those numbers after her name, Ms joannem07254906 may be a bot herself.
Without meaning to attempt any doxxing, I'd reckon that her birthdate is 25th July 1996, and that 40 is a special number for her (house number, or perhaps her IQ).
Odd that an English woman would use the American format of mm/dd, but I may be overthinking it.
Not if you are filing electronic documents - better to sort by year month day (180308)
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
If only she were more ruthless.
1.Order Order is not a reliable source
2. If it were true Labour working for a soft BREXIT is probably acceptable to Lab leavers and Remainers.
"Order Order is not a reliable source" is up there in the with Hirohito's "A situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage'
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
If only she were more ruthless.
1.Order Order is not a reliable source
2. If it were true Labour working for a soft BREXIT is probably acceptable to Lab leavers and Remainers.
In a lightweight sort of a way this is definitely true. If Kier Starmer has a meeting with the EU then that'll have to include the views which he has, and that will undermine the government view. There's no problem with that.
Labour is working to disagree with the government, as that's their role. They'll probably finish up undermining them along the way.
There a really big point though. Brussels officials should have no knowledge or engagement whatsoever with anything Labour suggests. As far as Brussels is concerned Labour should be nonexistant.
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
If only she were more ruthless.
It does sound as if Starmer has progressed negotiations further than DD can. Perhaps it just shows how far a consensual rather than confrontational approach can go.
The Commission don't really have time for arguments, they have too many other problems to deal with. Far better to deal with the actualite and resolve it rather than run around like blue arsed flies...
Edited: The Commission is actually very much smaller than our own Civil Service who deals with 65 million rather than their 400 million plus...
Giggles! A recent incident in Syria when Syrian forces backed by Russian "mercenaries" got bombed to hell when they were about to try and capture a US/UK undercover base shows that the Cold War has actually returned. If the Syrians and Russians had captured the base, how long before do you think the show trials and subsequent exchanges would have taken place...
Given that the Russians have now demonstrated that any exchange is worthless I don't know what we would do. It's probably best to follow the lead of the US forces and make sure that Russian bodybags outnumber your own, that way the problem won't arise.
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
If only she were more ruthless.
1.Order Order is not a reliable source
2. If it were true Labour working for a soft BREXIT is probably acceptable to Lab leavers and Remainers.
In a lightweight sort of a way this is definitely true. If Kier Starmer has a meeting with the EU then that'll have to include the views which he has, and that will undermine the government view. There's no problem with that.
Labour is working to disagree with the government, as that's their role. They'll probably finish up undermining them along the way.
There a really big point though. Brussels officials should have no knowledge or engagement whatsoever with anything Labour suggests. As far as Brussels is concerned Labour should be nonexistant.
Why not? Labour may well in power shortly after Brexit, and be keen to rewrite the Deal. No Parliament can bind its successors.
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
If only she were more ruthless.
1.Order Order is not a reliable source
2. If it were true Labour working for a soft BREXIT is probably acceptable to Lab leavers and Remainers.
In a lightweight sort of a way this is definitely true. If Kier Starmer has a meeting with the EU then that'll have to include the views which he has, and that will undermine the government view. There's no problem with that.
Labour is working to disagree with the government, as that's their role. They'll probably finish up undermining them along the way.
There a really big point though. Brussels officials should have no knowledge or engagement whatsoever with anything Labour suggests. As far as Brussels is concerned Labour should be nonexistant.
Why not? Labour may well in power shortly after Brexit, and be keen to rewrite the Deal. No Parliament can bind its successors.
No, but the EU may not be keen on another renegotiation.
Giggles! A recent incident in Syria when Syrian forces backed by Russian "mercenaries" got bombed to hell when they were about to try and capture a US/UK undercover base shows that the Cold War has actually returned. If the Syrians and Russians had captured the base, how long before do you think the show trials and subsequent exchanges would have taken place...
Given that the Russians have now demonstrated that any exchange is worthless I don't know what we would do. It's probably best to follow the lead of the US forces and make sure that Russian bodybags outnumber your own, that way the problem won't arise.
I never said it wouldn't, but a demonstration of Russian power inside the UK is straight out of the KGB Directorate 7/ Smersh retaliation book..
@Foxy, suspect in reality the Labour leadership will be likely to proclaim that they'd respect the deal.
If they don't they can be painted as Remainers trying to overturn the outcome of Brexit and, simletaneously, as weak actors trying to give away the powers we gain back.
Thank you - an interesting article, which does seem to take a step back from the heat around the changes, and undercuts some of the common whinges from both Labour and the Tories (for example that a notional seat loss for Labour being inherently unfair for that reason alone and the Tories placing blame on boundaries for overall bias without consideration of other factors, as being misleading) and is more compelling as a result.
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
If only she were more ruthless.
1.Order Order is not a reliable source
2. If it were true Labour working for a soft BREXIT is probably acceptable to Lab leavers and Remainers.
In a lightweight sort of a way this is definitely true. If Kier Starmer has a meeting with the EU then that'll have to include the views which he has, and that will undermine the government view. There's no problem with that.
Labour is working to disagree with the government, as that's their role. They'll probably finish up undermining them along the way.
There a really big point though. Brussels officials should have no knowledge or engagement whatsoever with anything Labour suggests. As far as Brussels is concerned Labour should be nonexistant.
Why not? Labour may well in power shortly after Brexit, and be keen to rewrite the Deal. No Parliament can bind its successors.
No, but the EU may not be keen on another renegotiation.
Negotiations will more or less be permanently revising. We will always be talking to our neighbours, sometimes in intemperate harangues under the Tories, sometimes desperate pleading under the Tories and sometimes with a positive constructive attitudes under other parties.
I just wonder whether -just for balance -this site ever leads with an article which is sympathetic to the leave cause, and the fact that the people of the UK democratically voted to leave the EU, and that remoaners are denying democracy by obstructing it.
Brexit only has downsides. How is anyone supposed to "balance" that?
Want to bet on a non-existent upside? If you put together some sort of terms for a bet that will win on your 'only downsides' proposition then I'll bet something beyond a gentlemanly consideration.
I suppose you can always find an upside even amongst all the downsides - blue passports perhaps?
Brexit if done even half well will deliver an explosion in UK GDP growth. It'll not be real growth, and I don't know if it'll even really count, but it'll be a rather grand firework.
Choose a measure as to Brexit=bad. Choose a line. Say when you're ready to bet!
@Foxy, suspect in reality the Labour leadership will be likely to proclaim that they'd respect the deal.
If they don't they can be painted as Remainers trying to overturn the outcome of Brexit and, simletaneously, as weak actors trying to give away the powers we gain back.
They can respect it while working on the upgrade. No deal is ever permanent.
@Foxy, suspect in reality the Labour leadership will be likely to proclaim that they'd respect the deal.
If they don't they can be painted as Remainers trying to overturn the outcome of Brexit and, simletaneously, as weak actors trying to give away the powers we gain back.
They can respect it while working on the upgrade. No deal is ever permanent.
The EU could have used some of that flexibility sooner rather than react to anyone suggesting a different path like they were a populist heretic.
Thank you - an interesting article, which does seem to take a step back from the heat around the changes, and undercuts some of the common whinges from both Labour and the Tories (for example that a notional seat loss for Labour being inherently unfair for that reason alone and the Tories placing blame on boundaries for overall bias without consideration of other factors, as being misleading) and is more compelling as a result.
The thing is, those two whinges are not comparable. The Tory complaints are legitimate but exaggerated (and it really doesn't matter - the boundary changes will only level out the one legitimate complaint). The Labour complaint is simply that they think they are entitled to a bias.
But I agree that it's a very good piece based on evidence.
Giggles! A recent incident in Syria when Syrian forces backed by Russian "mercenaries" got bombed to hell when they were about to try and capture a US/UK undercover base shows that the Cold War has actually returned. If the Syrians and Russians had captured the base, how long before do you think the show trials and subsequent exchanges would have taken place...
Given that the Russians have now demonstrated that any exchange is worthless I don't know what we would do. It's probably best to follow the lead of the US forces and make sure that Russian bodybags outnumber your own, that way the problem won't arise.
Giggles! A recent incident in Syria when Syrian forces backed by Russian "mercenaries" got bombed to hell when they were about to try and capture a US/UK undercover base shows that the Cold War has actually returned. If the Syrians and Russians had captured the base, how long before do you think the show trials and subsequent exchanges would have taken place...
Given that the Russians have now demonstrated that any exchange is worthless I don't know what we would do. It's probably best to follow the lead of the US forces and make sure that Russian bodybags outnumber your own, that way the problem won't arise.
2/. Some years ago, during the mess that was Lebanon, and the kidnapping of foreign nationals was a popular hobby, one of the enterprising clans captured a couple of CCCP officials (it was before the collapse) and held them for ransom. A car drove up to the the hills and to the HQ of the organisation concerned, and threw out the heads of two their senior officials to the door before driving off. The two Russians were returned to their embassy, forthwith and unharmed.....Unlike 2 Brits who were imprisoned for over 5 years....
To be fair, the comment about Boris J is appropriate.
We have fucked up so badly that I don't see how whichever of the HS or FS has responsibility for the relevant skulduggery, is not standing down. We presumably as a nation guaranteed this guy's safety under the deal which brought him here, and we fell down on the guarantee. And if anyone wants to take the repulsive line that that's ok because he is Russian a traitor, etc, we have also collaterally endangered the lives of UK citizens exposed to all these poisons and nerve agents.
It's worth bearing in mind that Skripal was convicted, imprisoned, pardoned, and then exchanged along with some other agents for Russian spies. He was presumably living openly because it was assumed that the Russians had already dealt with him. It's quite different from agents that the UK has exfiltrated and then gone to great lengths to hide.
I don't suppose there will be any more spy swaps.
Fair point. I do think, though, that in giving anyone citizenship we guarantee their security and that in this kind of case that requires rather a close watch to be kept over them by the spooks.
I am incidentally saddened to see cctv footage of Skripal buying scratchcards, I thought from a close reading of Ian Fleming that baccarat and chemin de fer were the spy's chosen games of chance.
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
If only she were more ruthless.
1.Order Order is not a reliable source
2. If it were true Labour working for a soft BREXIT is probably acceptable to Lab leavers and Remainers.
In a lightweight sort of a way this is definitely true. If Kier Starmer has a meeting with the EU then that'll have to include the views which he has, and that will undermine the government view. There's no problem with that.
Labour is working to disagree with the government, as that's their role. They'll probably finish up undermining them along the way.
There a really big point though. Brussels officials should have no knowledge or engagement whatsoever with anything Labour suggests. As far as Brussels is concerned Labour should be nonexistant.
Why not? Labour may well in power shortly after Brexit, and be keen to rewrite the Deal. No Parliament can bind its successors.
No Parliament can pre-judge its successors too. "Why not?" - because it undermines our system.
edit: please ignore until I can attribute who said what
You'd almost think reading some comments that people are relieved the Russians have returned to their traditional role of the "bad guys". I mean, having Russia on our side never felt right did it ?
So we have the perfidious Europeans, the nasty Russians, the duplicitous (fill in the bad guys of the week) but we true British, incorruptible, always end up coming out best. We're always right, never wrong, always principled.
It's like being back in the 80s in so many ways but people knew where they were then and the world was simpler then, wasn't it ?
No point trying to deal with the complicated 21st century when the 20th was so much easier.
Thank you - an interesting article, which does seem to take a step back from the heat around the changes, and undercuts some of the common whinges from both Labour and the Tories (for example that a notional seat loss for Labour being inherently unfair for that reason alone and the Tories placing blame on boundaries for overall bias without consideration of other factors, as being misleading) and is more compelling as a result.
The thing is, those two whinges are not comparable. The Tory complaints are legitimate but exaggerated (and it really doesn't matter - the boundary changes will only level out the one legitimate complaint). The Labour complaint is simply that they think they are entitled to a bias.
But I agree that it's a very good piece based on evidence.
You’ll never amount to much round here if you adopt that sort of attitude
@Foxy, suspect in reality the Labour leadership will be likely to proclaim that they'd respect the deal.
If they don't they can be painted as Remainers trying to overturn the outcome of Brexit and, simletaneously, as weak actors trying to give away the powers we gain back.
They can respect it while working on the upgrade. No deal is ever permanent.
The EU could have used some of that flexibility sooner rather than react to anyone suggesting a different path like they were a populist heretic.
Why? We are the ones leaving. We have no "right" to demand anything...
@Foxy, suspect in reality the Labour leadership will be likely to proclaim that they'd respect the deal.
If they don't they can be painted as Remainers trying to overturn the outcome of Brexit and, simletaneously, as weak actors trying to give away the powers we gain back.
They can respect it while working on the upgrade. No deal is ever permanent.
The EU could have used some of that flexibility sooner rather than react to anyone suggesting a different path like they were a populist heretic.
Why? We are the ones leaving. We have no "right" to demand anything...
The EU are not in a position to be flexible. Consessions to the UK would lead to demands from other members.
You'd almost think reading some comments that people are relieved the Russians have returned to their traditional role of the "bad guys". I mean, having Russia on our side never felt right did it ?
So we have the perfidious Europeans, the nasty Russians, the duplicitous (fill in the bad guys of the week) but we true British, incorruptible, always end up coming out best. We're always right, never wrong, always principled.
It's like being back in the 80s in so many ways but people knew where they were then and the world was simpler then, wasn't it ?
No point trying to deal with the complicated 21st century when the 20th was so much easier.
Could you please identify - just to the nearest year will do - the period during which it was possible to believe that Putin was not a complete and utter horp?
You'd almost think reading some comments that people are relieved the Russians have returned to their traditional role of the "bad guys". I mean, having Russia on our side never felt right did it ?
So we have the perfidious Europeans, the nasty Russians, the duplicitous (fill in the bad guys of the week) but we true British, incorruptible, always end up coming out best. We're always right, never wrong, always principled.
It's like being back in the 80s in so many ways but people knew where they were then and the world was simpler then, wasn't it ?
No point trying to deal with the complicated 21st century when the 20th was so much easier.
Mistake 1: The Russians do not consider themselves the bad guys. They just have a different perspective which we, do not consider (because we think it stupid, they don't). Look at a map of the world from Russia view, and they are surrounded on all sides by enemies, North (over Pole before anyone argues), South, East and West.
You'd almost think reading some comments that people are relieved the Russians have returned to their traditional role of the "bad guys". I mean, having Russia on our side never felt right did it ?
So we have the perfidious Europeans, the nasty Russians, the duplicitous (fill in the bad guys of the week) but we true British, incorruptible, always end up coming out best. We're always right, never wrong, always principled.
It's like being back in the 80s in so many ways but people knew where they were then and the world was simpler then, wasn't it ?
No point trying to deal with the complicated 21st century when the 20th was so much easier.
So the Russians are killing people on our streets and they're not really the bad guys?
Fair point. I do think, though, that in giving anyone citizenship we guarantee their security and that in this kind of case that requires rather a close watch to be kept over them by the spooks.
I can't recall any exchanged spy being murdered before. Quite why the Russians have decided to abandon the "rules" I've no idea. The argument that Skripal was still providing information is bogus in my opinion, as it has always been the case that agents are debriefed to get as much intelligence from them as possible. It's also hard to see how Skripal could be getting any new intelligence, given he's been living in the UK continuously. Skripal's only real use to us would have been for historic information and general consultation.
Basically for unknown reasons it looks like the Russians have changed the rules.
Comments
1. The expat Brexiters - see previous comments
2. The plastic pretend Brexiters - people like HYUFD, BigG and Carlotta Vance who were avid Remainers before the vote but have now made a May-esque Damascine conversion to Brexit and belittle "Remoaners" with the best of them. Their lack of principle and backbone is pathetic.
3. The look how rich and smart I am braggers - gold medal SeanT, runners up TSE, Charles, DavidL, Robert Smithson, Casino Royale and Richard Navabi
The large number of principled Leavers on here such as yourself, Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall I have a sneaking respect for despite disagreeing with your views.
'For Fools are Stubborn in their Way,
As Coins are hardned by th'Allay,
And Obstinancy ne'r so stiff,
As when 'tis in a wrong belief'
How could that not make PBers laugh - I'm sure we've all been truly obstinate about something only later to be proven wrong....
The redrawing should be done in the aftermath of the most recent GE, not based on out of date registrations, and not at the timetable of the governing party.
Mr. Jessop, congrats
Anyway, I am off. Play nicely.
Enjoy the day when it arrives.
The review has processes; those who want to interfere with an independent body need a new dictionary, evidently.
You are taking the piss, right?
That's an organisation that makes the EU look principled and effective.
Are Sinn Fein-Donald Tusk trying to rob me on Betfair ?
“will Brexit happen on March 29th 2019” I'm on YES here.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-talks-irish-border-tusk-varadkar-northern-ireland-uk-solution-dup-a8246216.html
That is why the rules should be bipartisan and fair, not under the control of the government.
I was amused to see one prominent leaver's vision for the future of the UK's international relations was the UN and the Commonwealth.
Mkhitaryan's first goal for Arsenal
If there are a lot of them the constituency they are in will be 'over' populated, assuming others haven't left the constituency to vacate accommodation for the new registrants.
I suspect it is a problem that is easily given greater attention than the probably minor effect deserves.
Yes, you do seem to live a blessed existence, and I am one - I’m sure - of many PBers who envy you!
Perhaps instead of haranguing the Russians she could tell Mi5 that if they must recruit Russians to spy for them at least they could take the trouble to keep them safe
QED.
Just take the interesting point out of it.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1967/feb/13/mr-kosygin-visit
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1968/jan/25/soviet-union-prime-ministers-visit
It's not as if the UK was 'soft'. It was well aware of what the Russian armed forces were up to in eastern Europe. But it didn't stop normal diplomatic courtesies being observed.
https://order-order.com/2018/03/08/draft-starmer-press-release-shows-labour-working-with-brussels/
The Tories should batter them with this. I bet they won’t, in the same sad way that Theresa May won’t make continued participation in the defence of Eastern Europe conditional on a reasonable trade deal.
If only she were more ruthless.
If you're prepared to get involved in this murky world a certain amount of collateral damage is to be expected. It's the Home Office who should be answering the questions and when things settle down I hope they will be
That's not even including the tax payer funded government propaganda
The Kremlin doesn't need bots in the UK when our own people trot out their lines at a drop of a hat.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/president-trump-amazed-by-the-falcon-heavy-landing-and-its-low-cost/
Mail Online
Order-order
The Telegraph
PB is, by comparison, a beacon of good sense and moderation.
I like Musk's vision, and the way he's going for it. I'm just not a fanboy, and think he's rather disingenuous when it comes to Tesla.
Now, my real nemesis was Jobs. He was truly a man who did f'all good with his billions, and his company is so evil that the building he designs hospitalises his employees. As ever with Apple, style over substance.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/05/apple-park-workers-hurt-glass-walls-norman-foster-steve-jobs
'Night all.....
Brexit: it’s just not worth it.
2. If it were true Labour working for a soft BREXIT is probably acceptable to Lab leavers and Remainers.
I don't suppose there will be any more spy swaps.
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/865855578454806529
In particular addresses issue of using "out of date" register.
https://www.ncpolitics.uk/2016/09/analysis-do-objections-to-the-boundary-review-stack-up.html/
"We will appease them on the beaches
We will appease them in the fields and surrender our streets
We shall cower in the hill and on the seas and oceans
We will not defend our islands because the costs are too high
We shall always surrender!"
Labour is working to disagree with the government, as that's their role. They'll probably finish up undermining them along the way.
There a really big point though.
Brussels officials should have no knowledge or engagement whatsoever with anything Labour suggests.
As far as Brussels is concerned Labour should be nonexistant.
Edited: The Commission is actually very much smaller than our own Civil Service who deals with 65 million rather than their 400 million plus...
If they don't they can be painted as Remainers trying to overturn the outcome of Brexit and, simletaneously, as weak actors trying to give away the powers we gain back.
Choose a measure as to Brexit=bad. Choose a line. Say when you're ready to bet!
I believe you have shot the fox.
But I agree that it's a very good piece based on evidence.
I am incidentally saddened to see cctv footage of Skripal buying scratchcards, I thought from a close reading of Ian Fleming that baccarat and chemin de fer were the spy's chosen games of chance.
No Parliament can pre-judge its successors too. "Why not?" - because it undermines our system.
edit: please ignore until I can attribute who said what
You'd almost think reading some comments that people are relieved the Russians have returned to their traditional role of the "bad guys". I mean, having Russia on our side never felt right did it ?
So we have the perfidious Europeans, the nasty Russians, the duplicitous (fill in the bad guys of the week) but we true British, incorruptible, always end up coming out best. We're always right, never wrong, always principled.
It's like being back in the 80s in so many ways but people knew where they were then and the world was simpler then, wasn't it ?
No point trying to deal with the complicated 21st century when the 20th was so much easier.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5478985/Top-Russian-state-TV-presenter-makes-chilling-warning-traitors.html
Basically for unknown reasons it looks like the Russians have changed the rules.