This will fuck up hundreds of thousands of holidays and biz trips. And it could all be just one guy - Greenpeace or jihadi, evil nutter or teen off his tits. Or a drunk who has forgotten he's got a drone and has fallen asleep on the joystick.
My money is on someone fed up with noise.
Hmm.
This thread is interesting. Says it *could* be low level terrorism, but probably isn't. But is certain about the terror potential.
This will fuck up hundreds of thousands of holidays and biz trips. And it could all be just one guy - Greenpeace or jihadi, evil nutter or teen off his tits. Or a drunk who has forgotten he's got a drone and has fallen asleep on the joystick.
My money is on someone fed up with noise.
Hmm.
This thread is interesting. Says it *could* be low level terrorism, but probably isn't. But is certain about the terror potential.
Does anyone understand Andrea Leadsom's plan for a managed No Deal?
Apparently it still involves negotiating a deal with a transition period, but presumably no backstop? Is she suggesting we should give up anything in return for the EU giving up the backstop? If not, why should the EU agree to her "No Deal Deal"?
Does she understand that this isn't really no deal, is it?
The BBC quotes her as saying: "A managed no deal does not necessarily mean there is no withdrawal agreement at all." and: "What I am looking at is trying to find an alternative so that in the event that we cannot agree to this deal that there could be a further deal that looks at a more minimalist approach but enables us to leave with some kind of implementation period."
So, yes, she knows she is advocating a deal, but she is still calling it "no deal".
This can only mean that she has picked up that 'no deal' seems weirdly appealing to many Tory members without understanding that it means you don't have a deal with the EU?
This is the woman our hard Brexit friends think would have delivered a better outcome than Mrs M.
This can only mean that she has picked up that 'no deal' seems weirdly appealing to many Tory members without understanding that it means you don't have a deal with the EU?
It's remarkable under how many different brand umbrellas unicorns masquerade, isn't it?
Once May’s deal is defeated, she can’t possibly stay and no one in the Tory Party would want her to. She would face a proper VNOC from Labour then, which she’d probably win but she would then be the news rather than policy which would be a massive distraction.
With Labour currently on the back foot after Corbyn’s mad moment yesterday, and idiotic attempt at a VNOC which made the Keystone Cops look competent, she’d after to make way. She won’t be missed.
As for Brexit, it might not happen at all. The chances of no deal or no Brexit must be about neck and neck.
Why do people insist on abbreviating it to VNOC?
It’s VONC man!
That’s the kind of pedantry I expect on PB - I always give people the benefit of the doubt as m6 autocorrect is bonkers on my Ipad
Mine keeps changing 'because' to 'becuase' for some reason. Does anyone know how I change it?
I often transpose two letters when typing , it is seemingly very common and something to do with one side of the brain working faster than the other, especially when you are a genius like me.
There are no other geniuses like you, malc.
Certainly it's unusual to come across one with a brain running slow on one side.
Is it? One side of the brain is more analytical and the other side is more creative. From memory.
If you're an analytical genius (or vice versa) I could well imagine one side running faster.
Isn't the "finance bill" normally passed by now, or does it take eons normally.
The programme motion is the same as previous bills, it's just that Christmas and Brexit and other parliamentary shenanigans have gotten in the way.
Its third reading in the HoC will be over two months since the first reading which is an unusually long passage for a finance bill.
Plus the finance bill is introduced about 6 months earlier than it used to be but still comes into effect at same time (from memory). Makes ramming it through Parliament less urgent.
This will fuck up hundreds of thousands of holidays and biz trips. And it could all be just one guy - Greenpeace or jihadi, evil nutter or teen off his tits. Or a drunk who has forgotten he's got a drone and has fallen asleep on the joystick.
My money is on someone fed up with noise.
Hmm.
This thread is interesting. Says it *could* be low level terrorism, but probably isn't. But is certain about the terror potential.
'Could' is journalistic slang here for "I'm just speculating wildly but trying to making it look like news".
Of course it *could* be low level terrorism, that's pretty much a statement of the obvious.
Indeed. It could be. It could also be someone’s grandad who has had too much port and has nicked his grandson’s new toy for a laugh. It could also be a fanatical Leaver preventing the furriners from entering the country.
The way the different functional centres of the brain interoperate is way more complex than that, many cognitive abilities are diffuse across both lobes and are able to operate redundantly in either, and in any case, the two lobes are *massively* interconnected via the central core, so there's no real distinction from a cognitive perspective in which lobe(s) a particular cognitive feature occurs.
This will fuck up hundreds of thousands of holidays and biz trips. And it could all be just one guy - Greenpeace or jihadi, evil nutter or teen off his tits. Or a drunk who has forgotten he's got a drone and has fallen asleep on the joystick.
My money is on someone fed up with noise.
Hmm.
This thread is interesting. Says it *could* be low level terrorism, but probably isn't. But is certain about the terror potential.
There's no planes flying, there's no one on the runway, tell everyone near the airport to go indoors: then shoot down the drones. How hard is that? Gatwick??
Just detonate a massive EMP bomb. Plus side is it might take out Croydon too.
How about a more logical cause for the drone attack on Gatwick? A nest of Greens wanting to stop air transport at a peak time. Think of all the carbon dioxide they're stopping.
No evidence, but they're barmy enough. Where was that Attenborough fellow while this was going on?
Once May’s deal is defeated, she can’t possibly stay and no one in the Tory Party would want her to. She would face a proper VNOC from Labour then, which she’d probably win but she would then be the news rather than policy which would be a massive distraction.
With Labour currently on the back foot after Corbyn’s mad moment yesterday, and idiotic attempt at a VNOC which made the Keystone Cops look competent, she’d after to make way. She won’t be missed.
As for Brexit, it might not happen at all. The chances of no deal or no Brexit must be about neck and neck.
Why do people insist on abbreviating it to VNOC?
It’s VONC man!
That’s the kind of pedantry I expect on PB - I always give people the benefit of the doubt as m6 autocorrect is bonkers on my Ipad
Mine keeps changing 'because' to 'becuase' for some reason. Does anyone know how I change it?
I often transpose two letters when typing , it is seemingly very common and something to do with one side of the brain working faster than the other, especially when you are a genius like me.
Explains why you no longer work at the Large Hadron Collider......
We have our differences, but bravo. You have won PB with that one.
This will fuck up hundreds of thousands of holidays and biz trips. And it could all be just one guy - Greenpeace or jihadi, evil nutter or teen off his tits. Or a drunk who has forgotten he's got a drone and has fallen asleep on the joystick.
My money is on someone fed up with noise.
Hmm.
This thread is interesting. Says it *could* be low level terrorism, but probably isn't. But is certain about the terror potential.
How about a more logical cause for the drone attack on Gatwick? A nest of Greens wanting to stop air transport at a peak time. Think of all the carbon dioxide they're stopping.
No evidence, but they're barmy enough. Where was that Attenborough fellow while this was going on?
You'd think that a radical environmentalist cell would be crowing about it if it were them.
I bet Greenpeace is kicking themselves they didn't think of it first.
Isn't the "finance bill" normally passed by now, or does it take eons normally.
The programme motion is the same as previous bills, it's just that Christmas and Brexit and other parliamentary shenanigans have gotten in the way.
Its third reading in the HoC will be over two months since the first reading which is an unusually long passage for a finance bill.
I guess the Gov't is trying to blackmail backbenchers into voting through the deal; so the backbenchers might as well try something back.
Blackmail is bad whoever tries it, noone should give in to blackmail.
We have our differences, but bravo. You have won PB with that one.
I've been trying to work out Theresa May's thought processes given her statements - bit of "method acting" if you like. I think I reached it in the end, and she's definitely on the hard Brexit side of things.
This will fuck up hundreds of thousands of holidays and biz trips. And it could all be just one guy - Greenpeace or jihadi, evil nutter or teen off his tits. Or a drunk who has forgotten he's got a drone and has fallen asleep on the joystick.
My money is on someone fed up with noise.
Hmm.
This thread is interesting. Says it *could* be low level terrorism, but probably isn't. But is certain about the terror potential.
There's no planes flying, there's no one on the runway, tell everyone near the airport to go indoors: then shoot down the drones. How hard is that? Gatwick??
Just detonate a massive EMP bomb. Plus side is it might take out Croydon too.
Or they could always use one of these. Would definitely get rid of the drone and nobody would have to complain about flight delays at Gatwick ever again.
How about a more logical cause for the drone attack on Gatwick? A nest of Greens wanting to stop air transport at a peak time. Think of all the carbon dioxide they're stopping.
No evidence, but they're barmy enough. Where was that Attenborough fellow while this was going on?
You'd think that a radical environmentalist cell would be crowing about it if it were them.
I bet Greenpeace is kicking themselves they didn't think of it first.
Would have to be more radical than Greenpeace I think, because the very act of disrupting flights wouldn't save many emissions as passengers have to be moved around.
Isn't the "finance bill" normally passed by now, or does it take eons normally.
The programme motion is the same as previous bills, it's just that Christmas and Brexit and other parliamentary shenanigans have gotten in the way.
Its third reading in the HoC will be over two months since the first reading which is an unusually long passage for a finance bill.
I guess the Gov't is trying to blackmail backbenchers into voting through the deal; so the backbenchers might as well try something back.
Blackmail is bad whoever tries it, noone should give in to blackmail.
All politics is blackmail.
That's unfair, there's a sliding scale of ways to get what you want in politics.
-> appeal to better judgement -> appeal to enlightened self interest -> bribery -> appeal to loyalty -> emotional blackmail -> actual blackmail -> threats of violence -> war
At a very brief glance, all that amendment does is stop the government from preparing for No Deal without Parliament’s approval. In other words, our MPs can make things even worse for us in the event of No Deal.
At a very brief glance, all that amendment does is stop the government from preparing for No Deal without Parliament’s approval. In other words, our MPs can make things even worse for us in the event of No Deal.
How about a more logical cause for the drone attack on Gatwick? A nest of Greens wanting to stop air transport at a peak time. Think of all the carbon dioxide they're stopping.
No evidence, but they're barmy enough. Where was that Attenborough fellow while this was going on?
You'd think that a radical environmentalist cell would be crowing about it if it were them.
I bet Greenpeace is kicking themselves they didn't think of it first.
Someone on Twitter just asked - when I suggested clearing the area and shooting them down (surely the solution, like with an escaped tiger from a zoo) - what if the drone is carrying something toxic? I reckon this is highly unlikely, and if it is true, then it could be dropped at any moment and better we choose that moment than the terrorist/nutter/drunk.
Either way, as you say, there must be Greenpeace wankers and Islamist nerds across the world thinking, OOOH, that's EASY
I think a drone that's big enough to actually carry a significant amount of explosives would be detectable by radar. A drone this small could certainly carry a dangerous amount of, say, Novichok. But that still raises the question of whether a drone is an efficient delivery mechanism for nerve agents.
This will fuck up hundreds of thousands of holidays and biz trips. And it could all be just one guy - Greenpeace or jihadi, evil nutter or teen off his tits. Or a drunk who has forgotten he's got a drone and has fallen asleep on the joystick.
My money is on someone fed up with noise.
Hmm.
This thread is interesting. Says it *could* be low level terrorism, but probably isn't. But is certain about the terror potential.
'Could' is journalistic slang here for "I'm just speculating wildly but trying to making it look like news".
Of course it *could* be low level terrorism, that's pretty much a statement of the obvious.
Indeed. It could be. It could also be someone’s grandad who has had too much port and has nicked his grandson’s new toy for a laugh. It could also be a fanatical Leaver preventing the furriners from entering the country.
Has anyone seen Donny today?
If you're going to be obsessed about me you really should pay more attention.
Isn't the "finance bill" normally passed by now, or does it take eons normally.
The programme motion is the same as previous bills, it's just that Christmas and Brexit and other parliamentary shenanigans have gotten in the way.
Its third reading in the HoC will be over two months since the first reading which is an unusually long passage for a finance bill.
I guess the Gov't is trying to blackmail backbenchers into voting through the deal; so the backbenchers might as well try something back.
Blackmail is bad whoever tries it, noone should give in to blackmail.
All politics is blackmail.
That's unfair, there's a sliding scale of ways to get what you want in politics.
-> appeal to better judgement -> appeal to enlightened self interest -> bribery -> appeal to loyalty -> emotional blackmail -> actual blackmail -> threats of violence -> war
With current politicians, I can see why you didn't include inspirational leadership on that list.
The combination of the FTPA and Tory leadership rules is a heady cocktail.
I mean the FTPA was essentially designed to preserve Dave's coalition by preventing the Tories being able to call an election without the support of the Lib Dems.
The FTPA was designed to greatly increase the leverage that the minor party in a coalition has.
It's just now doing it for the DUP rather than the Lib Dems.
Once May’s deal is defeated, she can’t possibly stay and no one in the Tory Party would want her to. She would face a proper VNOC from Labour then, which she’d probably win but she would then be the news rather than policy which would be a massive distraction.
With Labour currently on the back foot after Corbyn’s mad moment yesterday, and idiotic attempt at a VNOC which made the Keystone Cops look competent, she’d after to make way. She won’t be missed.
As for Brexit, it might not happen at all. The chances of no deal or no Brexit must be about neck and neck.
Why do people insist on abbreviating it to VNOC?
It’s VONC man!
That’s the kind of pedantry I expect on PB - I always give people the benefit of the doubt as m6 autocorrect is bonkers on my Ipad
Mine keeps changing 'because' to 'becuase' for some reason. Does anyone know how I change it?
I often transpose two letters when typing , it is seemingly very common and something to do with one side of the brain working faster than the other, especially when you are a genius like me.
Once May’s deal is defeated, she can’t possibly stay and no one in the Tory Party would want her to. She would face a proper VNOC from Labour then, which she’d probably win but she would then be the news rather than policy which would be a massive distraction.
With Labour currently on the back foot after Corbyn’s mad moment yesterday, and idiotic attempt at a VNOC which made the Keystone Cops look competent, she’d after to make way. She won’t be missed.
As for Brexit, it might not happen at all. The chances of no deal or no Brexit must be about neck and neck.
Why do people insist on abbreviating it to VNOC?
It’s VONC man!
That’s the kind of pedantry I expect on PB - I always give people the benefit of the doubt as m6 autocorrect is bonkers on my Ipad
Mine keeps changing 'because' to 'becuase' for some reason. Does anyone know how I change it?
I often transpose two letters when typing , it is seemingly very common and something to do with one side of the brain working faster than the other, especially when you are a genius like me.
There are no other geniuses like you, malc.
Certainly it's unusual to come across one with a brain running slow on one side.
Ian , I said less fast, never a mention of it being slow, just relative to mega fast
Comments
https://twitter.com/NGrossman81/status/1075771847654797312
Of course it *could* be low level terrorism, that's pretty much a statement of the obvious.
This is the woman our hard Brexit friends think would have delivered a better outcome than Mrs M.
If you're an analytical genius (or vice versa) I could well imagine one side running faster.
Has anyone seen Donny today?
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/left-brain-right-brain-myth/
The way the different functional centres of the brain interoperate is way more complex than that, many cognitive abilities are diffuse across both lobes and are able to operate redundantly in either, and in any case, the two lobes are *massively* interconnected via the central core, so there's no real distinction from a cognitive perspective in which lobe(s) a particular cognitive feature occurs.
No evidence, but they're barmy enough. Where was that Attenborough fellow while this was going on?
I bet Greenpeace is kicking themselves they didn't think of it first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie
Actually my reply was meant for Mark.
Apologies.
Don't work in penisons.
I had a legal secretary who worked on a deal for the then dominant word processor manufacturer, Wang. Yes, she did.
-> appeal to better judgement
-> appeal to enlightened self interest
-> bribery
-> appeal to loyalty
-> emotional blackmail
-> actual blackmail
-> threats of violence
-> war
Where would we be without them?
I, for one, welcome our quadcopter overlords.
The FTPA was designed to greatly increase the leverage that the minor party in a coalition has.
It's just now doing it for the DUP rather than the Lib Dems.