Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Kirsty Wark heads the betting for the next QuestionTime host

2

Comments

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    ydoethur said:

    Looks like another example of EU trying to something and making a total mess of it, but they won’t change course like VAT disaster,

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

    I have been going on about this for months. This site would be in big trouble for a start as it would be a breach of the rules for any of us to post links to news items on other websites.
    Would FrancisUrquhart having linked to what the EU has done on the Independent website be illegal?

    In which case how would people scrutinise their government if sharing news is illegal? Seems very dodgy.
    Juncker always was a prat on such things. Google the reason why he was removed as PM of Luxembourg if you want to see a really dodgy story.
    Would that be legal if the link tax comes in?
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree, yes you were equivocating. I asked you a simple question, whether you thought the Leave campaign was xenophobic, which you failed to answer. You intimated you had not registered the campaign, a claim which bears no scrutiny. You dressed this non-answer up in swathes of quasi-intellectual waffle.

    Elliot, you are a flake. Buy a decent map. Plot a better route. You’ll be amazed by the difference in air quality when you eschew the obvious highways.

    Josias, of course it can be done. Don’t be ridiculous. Adopt Pulpstar’s idea and simply charge by the mile as the crow flies if necessary. I laugh in the face of rail people arguing that simplifying fares
    cannot be done.

    Another Nick. Quite right. The UK’s best and most popular railway is nationalised. Surely this cannot be?

    Did you think the Britain Stronger in campaign was xenophobic?
    No.
    So David Cameron standing up in front of the cameras and saying unless you vote to remain hordes of brown skinned animals will invade Kent and set up a jungle there, is perfectly acceptable to you.
    This is not racism/xenophobia?
    Can you show me where and when Cameron said this?
    google it, it is not that hard.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    There was talk of Dimbledee going a few years back and it concluded Anne McEvoy was the chosen one.May not be the case now but at around 20-1 may be worth a small punt.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited June 2018
    England manager Gareth Southgate dislocates shoulder while running...no this isn’t a setup to a joke, he really has...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,717

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree, yes you were equivocating. I asked you a simple question, whether you thought the Leave campaign was xenophobic, which you failed to answer. You intimated you had not registered the campaign, a claim which bears no scrutiny. You dressed this non-answer up in swathes of quasi-intellectual waffle.

    Elliot, you are a flake. Buy a decent map. Plot a better route. You’ll be amazed by the difference in air quality when you eschew the obvious highways.

    Josias, of course it can be done. Don’t be ridiculous. Adopt Pulpstar’s idea and simply charge by the mile as the crow flies if necessary. I laugh in the face of rail people arguing that simplifying fares
    cannot be done.

    Another Nick. Quite right. The UK’s best and most popular railway is nationalised. Surely this cannot be?

    Did you think the Britain Stronger in campaign was xenophobic?
    No.
    So David Cameron standing up in front of the cameras and saying unless you vote to remain hordes of brown skinned animals will invade Kent and set up a jungle there, is perfectly acceptable to you.
    This is not racism/xenophobia?
    Cameron has a great deal to answer for. Haing shafted Nick Clegg he then achieved the almost impossible feat of shafting himself.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742

    ydoethur said:

    Looks like another example of EU trying to something and making a total mess of it, but they won’t change course like VAT disaster,

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

    I have been going on about this for months. This site would be in big trouble for a start as it would be a breach of the rules for any of us to post links to news items on other websites.
    Would FrancisUrquhart having linked to what the EU has done on the Independent website be illegal?

    In which case how would people scrutinise their government if sharing news is illegal? Seems very dodgy.
    Juncker always was a prat on such things. Google the reason why he was removed as PM of Luxembourg if you want to see a really dodgy story.
    Would that be legal if the link tax comes in?
    Well, if Google is allowed to keep operating yes.

    Whether it would be able to I don't know. Possibly not in Europe.

    It is ironic to reflect that if this goes ahead Brexit might just be the salvation of our university system. Any university that can't use internet search engines is going to be at a huge disadvantage. It will wreck the French system for a start.
  • The Customs Union will be the next big clash. Not sure who will lead the remain camp, unless Grieve manages to somehow rebuild his position by then.

    Forgetting to mention, that Grieve's name is on the customs amendment coming up, along with others. Will be interesting to see how prominent a role he plays next time.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree, yes you were equivocating. I asked you a simple question, whether you thought the Leave campaign was xenophobic, which you failed to answer. You intimated you had not registered the campaign, a claim which bears no scrutiny. You dressed this non-answer up in swathes of quasi-intellectual waffle.

    Elliot, you are a flake. Buy a decent map. Plot a better route. You’ll be amazed by the difference in air quality when you eschew the obvious highways.

    Josias, of course it can be done. Don’t be ridiculous. Adopt Pulpstar’s idea and simply charge by the mile as the crow flies if necessary. I laugh in the face of rail people arguing that simplifying fares
    cannot be done.

    Another Nick. Quite right. The UK’s best and most popular railway is nationalised. Surely this cannot be?

    Did you think the Britain Stronger in campaign was xenophobic?
    No.
    So David Cameron standing up in front of the cameras and saying unless you vote to remain hordes of brown skinned animals will invade Kent and set up a jungle there, is perfectly acceptable to you.
    This is not racism/xenophobia?
    Cameron has a great deal to answer for. Haing shafted Nick Clegg he then achieved the almost impossible feat of shafting himself.
    No wonder Sam smiles a lot!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    Looks like another example of EU trying to something and making a total mess of it, but they won’t change course like VAT disaster,

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

    I have been going on about this for months. This site would be in big trouble for a start as it would be a breach of the rules for any of us to post links to news items on other websites.
    Would FrancisUrquhart having linked to what the EU has done on the Independent website be illegal?

    In which case how would people scrutinise their government if sharing news is illegal? Seems very dodgy.
    It would depend on the company. The Independent may decide not to. But the larger media companies have been pushing for this as they will then charge for links to their news sites. It means that any website such as PB will have to ban links or will risk being in breach of the law.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201

    The Customs Union will be the next big clash. Not sure who will lead the remain camp, unless Grieve manages to somehow rebuild his position by then.

    Forgetting to mention, that Grieve's name is on the customs amendment coming up, along with others. Will be interesting to see how prominent a role he plays next time.
    Has not the customs union been voted down a few times?
  • The Customs Union will be the next big clash. Not sure who will lead the remain camp, unless Grieve manages to somehow rebuild his position by then.

    Forgetting to mention, that Grieve's name is on the customs amendment coming up, along with others. Will be interesting to see how prominent a role he plays next time.
    Has not the customs union been voted down a few times?
    Yes, but this is a cross party amendment tabled by Clarke and Soubry. Theresa's next bit of fun.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    The Customs Union will be the next big clash. Not sure who will lead the remain camp, unless Grieve manages to somehow rebuild his position by then.

    Forgetting to mention, that Grieve's name is on the customs amendment coming up, along with others. Will be interesting to see how prominent a role he plays next time.
    Has not the customs union been voted down a few times?
    Four times now, I think.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    JPJ2 said:

    Kirsty Wark is rabidly unionist (even the BBC were obliged to reprimand her for an inappropriate overly robust questioning of Salmond), she is Scottish, and would therefore go a little way to shoring up the justification for declaring QT as managed and chargeable to Scotland in spite of it recently having gone 12 weeks and therefore 60 panellists without a single representative from the third party in Westminster.

    A good bet, I would say :-)

    At least when QT is held in Scotland, you get Scottish politicians & guests.

    The farce in Caernarfon on 14 June had John Mann, Isabel Oakeshott, Dominic Grieve and Matthew Wright on Question Time.

    Oh, and they added Leanne Wood as the final panelist as the token Welsh representative.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    edited June 2018

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree, yes you were equivocating. I asked you a simple question, whether you thought the Leave campaign was xenophobic, which you failed to answer. You intimated you had not registered the campaign, a claim which bears no scrutiny. You dressed this non-answer up in swathes of quasi-intellectual waffle.

    Elliot, you are a flake. Buy a decent map. Plot a better route. You’ll be amazed by the difference in air quality when you eschew the obvious highways.

    Josias, of course it can be done. Don’t be ridiculous. Adopt Pulpstar’s idea and simply charge by the mile as the crow flies if necessary. I laugh in the face of rail people arguing that simplifying fares
    cannot be done.

    Another Nick. Quite right. The UK’s best and most popular railway is nationalised. Surely this cannot be?

    Did you think the Britain Stronger in campaign was xenophobic?
    No.
    So David Cameron standing up in front of the cameras and saying unless you vote to remain hordes of brown skinned animals will invade Kent and set up a jungle there, is perfectly acceptable to you.
    This is not racism/xenophobia?
    Cameron has a great deal to answer for. Haing shafted Nick Clegg he then achieved the almost impossible feat of shafting himself.
    Your Venerable Majesty

    For normal men, it may be impossible.

    For those of us with eight foot horns on our organ, it's just a matter of touching it at the right moment...

    Edit - I was going to make a pun on pipes and three fiddlers, but that would be smutty.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,545

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree, yes you were equivocating. I asked you a simple question, whether you thought the Leave campaign was xenophobic, which you failed to answer. You intimated you had not registered the campaign, a claim which bears no scrutiny. You dressed this non-answer up in swathes of quasi-intellectual waffle.

    Elliot, you are a flake. Buy a decent map. Plot a better route. You’ll be amazed by the difference in air quality when you eschew the obvious highways.

    Josias, of course it can be done. Don’t be ridiculous. Adopt Pulpstar’s idea and simply charge by the mile as the crow flies if necessary. I laugh in the face of rail people arguing that simplifying fares
    cannot be done.

    Another Nick. Quite right. The UK’s best and most popular railway is nationalised. Surely this cannot be?

    Did you think the Britain Stronger in campaign was xenophobic?
    No.
    So David Cameron standing up in front of the cameras and saying unless you vote to remain hordes of brown skinned animals will invade Kent and set up a jungle there, is perfectly acceptable to you.
    This is not racism/xenophobia?
    Cameron has a great deal to answer for. Haing shafted Nick Clegg he then achieved the almost impossible feat of shafting himself.
    And while he was at it he also shafted the country and the Tory party. A record of failure that has probably never been equalled by any previous PM.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    The Houses of Parliament are the cocaine capital of London as is London the cocaine capital of Europe.Cocaine is widely found in rivers, with particularly high concentrations near London’s Houses of Parliament, National Geographic reports.

    Basically,a number of members the Houses of Lords and the Commons must be coke-heads,not forgetting the old whisky soaks,and these addicts are the same people who deny patients ,including children ,appropriate prescribed cannabis medication by their stupid laws.

    and they are poisoning the eels.


    Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/20/much-cocaine-eels-rivers-totally-wired-7647282/?ito=cbshare

  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree, yes you were equivocating. I asked you a simple question, whether you thought the Leave campaign was xenophobic, which you failed to answer. You intimated you had not registered the campaign, a claim which bears no scrutiny. You dressed this non-answer up in swathes of quasi-intellectual waffle.

    Elliot, you are a flake. Buy a decent map. Plot a better route. You’ll be amazed by the difference in air quality when you eschew the obvious highways.

    Josias, of course it can be done. Don’t be ridiculous. Adopt Pulpstar’s idea and simply charge by the mile as the crow flies if necessary. I laugh in the face of rail people arguing that simplifying fares
    cannot be done.

    Another Nick. Quite right. The UK’s best and most popular railway is nationalised. Surely this cannot be?

    Did you think the Britain Stronger in campaign was xenophobic?
    No.
    So David Cameron standing up in front of the cameras and saying unless you vote to remain hordes of brown skinned animals will invade Kent and set up a jungle there, is perfectly acceptable to you.
    This is not racism/xenophobia?
    Cameron has a great deal to answer for. Haing shafted Nick Clegg he then achieved the almost impossible feat of shafting himself.
    Your Venerable Majesty

    For normal men, it may be impossible.

    For those of us with eight foot horns on our organ, it's just a matter of touching it at the right moment...
    When you are playing your Organ do you have a fan club of Church Supermodels egging you on?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742

    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree, yes you were equivocating. I asked you a simple question, whether you thought the Leave campaign was xenophobic, which you failed to answer. You intimated you had not registered the campaign, a claim which bears no scrutiny. You dressed this non-answer up in swathes of quasi-intellectual waffle.

    Elliot, you are a flake. Buy a decent map. Plot a better route. You’ll be amazed by the difference in air quality when you eschew the obvious highways.

    Josias, of course it can be done. Don’t be ridiculous. Adopt Pulpstar’s idea and simply charge by the mile as the crow flies if necessary. I laugh in the face of rail people arguing that simplifying fares
    cannot be done.

    Another Nick. Quite right. The UK’s best and most popular railway is nationalised. Surely this cannot be?

    Did you think the Britain Stronger in campaign was xenophobic?
    No.
    So David Cameron standing up in front of the cameras and saying unless you vote to remain hordes of brown skinned animals will invade Kent and set up a jungle there, is perfectly acceptable to you.
    This is not racism/xenophobia?
    Cameron has a great deal to answer for. Haing shafted Nick Clegg he then achieved the almost impossible feat of shafting himself.
    Your Venerable Majesty

    For normal men, it may be impossible.

    For those of us with eight foot horns on our organ, it's just a matter of touching it at the right moment...
    When you are playing your Organ do you have a fan club of Church Supermodels egging you on?
    I should be so lucky.

    When I play wrong notes I sometimes get egged by superannuated choirmembers and that's as close as I get.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,763
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree, yes you were equivocating. I asked you a simple question, whether you thought the Leave campaign was xenophobic, which you failed to answer. You intimated you had not registered the campaign, a claim which bears no scrutiny. You dressed this non-answer up in swathes of quasi-intellectual waffle.

    Elliot, you are a flake. Buy a decent map. Plot a better route. You’ll be amazed by the difference in air quality when you eschew the obvious highways.

    Josias, of course it can be done. Don’t be ridiculous. Adopt Pulpstar’s idea and simply charge by the mile as the crow flies if necessary. I laugh in the face of rail people arguing that simplifying fares
    cannot be done.

    Another Nick. Quite right. The UK’s best and most popular railway is nationalised. Surely this cannot be?

    Did you think the Britain Stronger in campaign was xenophobic?
    No.
    So David Cameron standing up in front of the cameras and saying unless you vote to remain hordes of brown skinned animals will invade Kent and set up a jungle there, is perfectly acceptable to you.
    This is not racism/xenophobia?
    Cameron has a great deal to answer for. Haing shafted Nick Clegg he then achieved the almost impossible feat of shafting himself.
    Your Venerable Majesty

    For normal men, it may be impossible.

    For those of us with eight foot horns on our organ, it's just a matter of touching it at the right moment...
    When you are playing your Organ do you have a fan club of Church Supermodels egging you on?
    I should be so lucky.

    When I play wrong notes I sometimes get egged by superannuated choirmembers and that's as close as I get.
    Are we past the lagershed then?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree, yes you were equivocating. I asked you a simple question, whether you thought the Leave campaign was xenophobic, which you failed to answer. You intimated you had not registered the campaign, a claim which bears no scrutiny. You dressed this non-answer up in swathes of quasi-intellectual waffle.

    Elliot, you are a flake. Buy a decent map. Plot a better route. You’ll be amazed by the difference in air quality when you eschew the obvious highways.

    Josias, of course it can be done. Don’t be ridiculous. Adopt Pulpstar’s idea and simply charge by the mile as the crow flies if necessary. I laugh in the face of rail people arguing that simplifying fares
    cannot be done.

    Another Nick. Quite right. The UK’s best and most popular railway is nationalised. Surely this cannot be?

    Did you think the Britain Stronger in campaign was xenophobic?
    No.
    So David Cameron standing up in front of the cameras and saying unless you vote to remain hordes of brown skinned animals will invade Kent and set up a jungle there, is perfectly acceptable to you.
    This is not racism/xenophobia?
    Cameron has a great deal to answer for. Haing shafted Nick Clegg he then achieved the almost impossible feat of shafting himself.
    And while he was at it he also shafted the country and the Tory party. A record of failure that has probably never been equalled by any previous PM.
    Now come on. Let's not get carried away. Chamberlain and Goderich were both far more impressive.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    The Customs Union will be the next big clash. Not sure who will lead the remain camp, unless Grieve manages to somehow rebuild his position by then.

    Forgetting to mention, that Grieve's name is on the customs amendment coming up, along with others. Will be interesting to see how prominent a role he plays next time.
    Has not the customs union been voted down a few times?
    Yes, but this is a cross party amendment tabled by Clarke and Soubry. Theresa's next bit of fun.
    Well Clarke and Soubry have been super loyal to May. If they look like rebelling then whatever could happen next?
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591

    Looks like another example of EU trying to something and making a total mess of it, but they won’t change course like VAT disaster,

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

    I have been going on about this for months. This site would be in big trouble for a start as it would be a breach of the rules for any of us to post links to news items on other websites.
    Totally agree mr tyndall .That was the real reason for GDPR in the first place so an anti EU marketing campaign would be illegal. Not that many noticed!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Looks like another example of EU trying to something and making a total mess of it, but they won’t change course like VAT disaster,

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

    I have been going on about this for months. This site would be in big trouble for a start as it would be a breach of the rules for any of us to post links to news items on other websites.
    Would FrancisUrquhart having linked to what the EU has done on the Independent website be illegal?

    In which case how would people scrutinise their government if sharing news is illegal? Seems very dodgy.
    Juncker always was a prat on such things. Google the reason why he was removed as PM of Luxembourg if you want to see a really dodgy story.
    Would that be legal if the link tax comes in?
    Well, if Google is allowed to keep operating yes.

    Whether it would be able to I don't know. Possibly not in Europe.

    It is ironic to reflect that if this goes ahead Brexit might just be the salvation of our university system. Any university that can't use internet search engines is going to be at a huge disadvantage. It will wreck the French system for a start.
    There are other search engines, I use duckduckgo
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,717
    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree, yes you were equivocating. I asked you a simple question, whether you thought the Leave campaign was xenophobic, which you failed to answer. You intimated you had not registered the campaign, a claim which bears no scrutiny. You dressed this non-answer up in swathes of quasi-intellectual waffle.

    Elliot, you are a flake. Buy a decent map. Plot a better route. You’ll be amazed by the difference in air quality when you eschew the obvious highways.

    Josias, of course it can be done. Don’t be ridiculous. Adopt Pulpstar’s idea and simply charge by the mile as the crow flies if necessary. I laugh in the face of rail people arguing that simplifying fares
    cannot be done.

    Another Nick. Quite right. The UK’s best and most popular railway is nationalised. Surely this cannot be?

    Did you think the Britain Stronger in campaign was xenophobic?
    No.
    So David Cameron standing up in front of the cameras and saying unless you vote to remain hordes of brown skinned animals will invade Kent and set up a jungle there, is perfectly acceptable to you.
    This is not racism/xenophobia?
    Cameron has a great deal to answer for. Haing shafted Nick Clegg he then achieved the almost impossible feat of shafting himself.
    And while he was at it he also shafted the country and the Tory party. A record of failure that has probably never been equalled by any previous PM.
    Now come on. Let's not get carried away. Chamberlain and Goderich were both far more impressive.
    At least Chamberlain handed over to someone competent.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688

    The Customs Union will be the next big clash. Not sure who will lead the remain camp, unless Grieve manages to somehow rebuild his position by then.

    Forgetting to mention, that Grieve's name is on the customs amendment coming up, along with others. Will be interesting to see how prominent a role he plays next time.
    Has not the customs union been voted down a few times?
    Yes, but this is a cross party amendment tabled by Clarke and Soubry. Theresa's next bit of fun.
    Well Clarke and Soubry have been super loyal to May. If they look like rebelling then whatever could happen next?
    Soubry hasn't recovered from, or accepted, the Brexit vote.

    Clarke is just sticking to his guns. He's strayed into territory where if he looked around he'd find himself on the wrong side of his own fence. He'll work that out eventually.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,763
    hunchman said:

    Looks like another example of EU trying to something and making a total mess of it, but they won’t change course like VAT disaster,

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

    I have been going on about this for months. This site would be in big trouble for a start as it would be a breach of the rules for any of us to post links to news items on other websites.
    Totally agree mr tyndall .That was the real reason for GDPR in the first place so an anti EU marketing campaign would be illegal. Not that many noticed!
    You know, I have been over almost all of the GDPR. I must have missed that bit.

    It's a really crap piece of legislation, drafted by people with minimal contact with the real world who don't ever seem to have been in business. It makes our economy less competitive, it increases bureaucracy and it increases the cost of services for us all for no obvious benefit. Really, really stupid. But it does not prevent marketing for or against the EU.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,061

    OT.

    If anyone gets the chance to go and see David Byrne in concert do so - particularly if you are a fan of the old Talking Heads stuff. It is a quite remarkable performance. NME described it as "what may just be the best live show of all time".

    We were lucky enough to be right down at the front last night and it was just mesmerising.

    I saw him a few years back. A great live performer.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    So it looks like Question Time will be as "unbiased" as it was under the last tenant.

    Why anyone watches it is beyond me.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742
    edited June 2018

    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree, yes you were equivocating. I asked you a simple question, whether you thought the Leave campaign was xenophobic, which you failed to answer. You intimated you had not registered the campaign, a claim which bears no scrutiny. You dressed this non-answer up in swathes of quasi-intellectual waffle.

    Elliot, you are a flake. Buy a decent map. Plot a better route. You’ll be amazed by the difference in air quality when you eschew the obvious highways.

    Josias, of course it can be done. Don’t be ridiculous. Adopt Pulpstar’s idea and simply charge by the mile as the crow flies if necessary. I laugh in the face of rail people arguing that simplifying fares
    cannot be done.

    Another Nick. Quite right. The UK’s best and most popular railway is nationalised. Surely this cannot be?

    Did you think the Britain Stronger in campaign was xenophobic?
    No.
    So David Cameron standing up in front of the cameras and saying unless you vote to remain hordes of brown skinned animals will invade Kent and set up a jungle there, is perfectly acceptable to you.
    This is not racism/xenophobia?
    Cameron has a great deal to answer for. Haing shafted Nick Clegg he then achieved the almost impossible feat of shafting himself.
    And while he was at it he also shafted the country and the Tory party. A record of failure that has probably never been equalled by any previous PM.
    Now come on. Let's not get carried away. Chamberlain and Goderich were both far more impressive.
    At least Chamberlain handed over to someone competent.
    Did he? I thought he handed over to Winston Churchill of Dardanelles, Gold Standard and 'half-naked fakir' fame?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Mr Smithson

    its programme not program.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Anazina said:

    Cyclefree, yes you were equivocating. I asked you a simple question, whether you thought the Leave campaign was xenophobic, which you failed to answer. You intimated you had not registered the campaign, a claim which bears no scrutiny. You dressed this non-answer up in swathes of quasi-intellectual waffle.

    Elliot, you are a flake. Buy a decent map. Plot a better route. You’ll be amazed by the difference in air quality when you eschew the obvious highways.

    Josias, of course it can be done. Don’t be ridiculous. Adopt Pulpstar’s idea and simply charge by the mile as the crow flies if necessary. I laugh in the face of rail people arguing that simplifying fares
    cannot be done.

    Another Nick. Quite right. The UK’s best and most popular railway is nationalised. Surely this cannot be?

    The fact that you cannot be bothered to read what I have written on the subject is your problem. I said that I paid no attention to the Leave campaign on immigration because it - FoM - was not an issue which registered as a concern with me. So don’t inaccurately descibe what I have written.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited June 2018
    Too much good French wine Mr Smithson??

    "Given that the only men presenters of the programme since it was first broadcast have been man then that is, surely, a strong case for a woman to take this on".
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770

    Norm said:

    Roger said:

    Kirsty Young. A new face to breathe life into a dying program 16/1

    Powerful EU Superstate to dwarf UK

    https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/20/trumps-america-first-policy-could-bring-about-a-powerful-eu-superstate-that-leaves-britain-out-in-the-cold-7645758/

    Any talk of an impending EU superstate even in response to Trump's excesses will only reinforce in Leavers' minds that their choice was the right one.
    There seems no chance of a superstate. What many Europhiles favour is an eventual federation.

    There is a difference.

    The USA, Canada, Australia, Switzerland and some others are federations.
    France is a superstate.
    That really is splitting hairs though.

    All four of the examples you cite are single countries, which is precisely the point.
    How about the UK? It contains more than one country, as the World Cup reminds us.
    I'm not sure if the UK is a true federation. But under US 'states' rights' my understanding is that unless sovereignty on a matter was very specifically passed to the federal government a state isn't prevented from passing its own legislation. California has state air pollution regulations which differ from other states. In some ways, that's slightly more decentralised than the EU.

    I fail to see a problem if a federal country has elected levels of government, elaborate checks and balances, written constitution, etc. The EU parliament is elected by PR. In that respect it's superior to ours which isn't.
    Yes, but the Federal Government uses the "Interstate Commerce" clause of the constitution to legislate on far more than the Founders originally planned.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Looks like another example of EU trying to something and making a total mess of it, but they won’t change course like VAT disaster,

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

    I have been going on about this for months. This site would be in big trouble for a start as it would be a breach of the rules for any of us to post links to news items on other websites.
    Would FrancisUrquhart having linked to what the EU has done on the Independent website be illegal?

    In which case how would people scrutinise their government if sharing news is illegal? Seems very dodgy.
    It would depend on the company. The Independent may decide not to. But the larger media companies have been pushing for this as they will then charge for links to their news sites. It means that any website such as PB will have to ban links or will risk being in breach of the law.
    But if you’ve paid to subscribe to a newspaper and then send the link to someone else who has paid to view it, what then? Is that going to be forbidden?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    DavidL said:

    hunchman said:

    Looks like another example of EU trying to something and making a total mess of it, but they won’t change course like VAT disaster,

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

    I have been going on about this for months. This site would be in big trouble for a start as it would be a breach of the rules for any of us to post links to news items on other websites.
    Totally agree mr tyndall .That was the real reason for GDPR in the first place so an anti EU marketing campaign would be illegal. Not that many noticed!
    You know, I have been over almost all of the GDPR. I must have missed that bit.

    It's a really crap piece of legislation, drafted by people with minimal contact with the real world who don't ever seem to have been in business. It makes our economy less competitive, it increases bureaucracy and it increases the cost of services for us all for no obvious benefit. Really, really stupid. But it does not prevent marketing for or against the EU.
    I've not been clear on what it is supposed to prevent really. My understanding was that human error was behind most data breaches and poor data management and record keeping, and increasing the bureaucracy of it doesn't seem like it will fix that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Off-topic:

    We just had a friend nip around for a cup of tea, and a few minutes after she had left she was back with a flat tyre.

    A couple of things that interested me:

    *) I haven't had to change a tyre for twenty years, and neither Mrs J or our guest had ever changed one. In that time I've probably done 200,000+ miles Are flat tyres a lot less common than they were (perhaps due to improved tyre belts)?

    *) Space saver tyres are weird and unholy (pun intended).
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545

    Pour que l'orage s'annonce.

    Anyone else get the feeling that everyone is just going through the motions at the moment until the storm hits later in the year. I had previously thought that TM could pull off Brexit but there is only so much under performance possible. Events will start to overtake her and I cant see her lasting the year anymore.

    The storm hitting is an important step in resolving the Brexit contradictions. Which necessarily will be resolved as nothing exists in a vacuum. As long as things coast along the contradictions can be denied, as demonstrated by today's vote in the Commons. I expect we will end up with a lot less out of the EU relationship, at a similar monetary cost and a higher cost in jobs, prosperity and opportunities. At the same time we will lose a big say over what happens to us. It's a dumb deal. I hate to speak for Leavers, but I suspect they will be OK with it as we will be out of the hated EU, while Remainers will be relieved it's not worse.

    Mediocrity rules. Theresa May should be well placed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,742

    Off-topic:

    We just had a friend nip around for a cup of tea, and a few minutes after she had left she was back with a flat tyre.

    A couple of things that interested me:

    *) I haven't had to change a tyre for twenty years, and neither Mrs J or our guest had ever changed one. In that time I've probably done 200,000+ miles Are flat tyres a lot less common than they were (perhaps due to improved tyre belts)?

    *) Space saver tyres are weird and unholy (pun intended).

    I know it's a bugger to get them off when they do go flat, due to the tightness of the nuts when they're put on.

    I think I've changed one tyre in the last ten years. I've also had a slow puncture that I got the tyre place to deal with (in fact I've got another one now I need to get sorted).

    I think they are less common. Maybe smoother road surfaces and fewer glass bottles have an effect as well?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    FF43 said:

    Pour que l'orage s'annonce.

    Anyone else get the feeling that everyone is just going through the motions at the moment until the storm hits later in the year. I had previously thought that TM could pull off Brexit but there is only so much under performance possible. Events will start to overtake her and I cant see her lasting the year anymore.

    The storm hitting is an important step in resolving the Brexit contradictions. Which necessarily will be resolved as nothing exists in a vacuum. As long as things coast along the contradictions can be denied, as demonstrated by today's vote in the Commons. I expect we will end up with a lot less out of the EU relationship, at a similar monetary cost and a higher cost in jobs, prosperity and opportunities. At the same time we will lose a big say over what happens to us. It's a dumb deal. I hate to speak for Leavers, but I suspect they will be OK with it as we will be out of the hated EU, while Remainers will be relieved it's not worse.

    Mediocrity rules. Theresa May should be well placed.
    A BINO frankly would probably command a majority in the country, if most remainers would be happy with the INO part and enough Leavers were satisfied with the B part. Obviously neither of those will be true completely, and for all the talk of things being soft it doesn't seem like if there is a deal (I still put that as less likely than no deal, personally) it will be INO as it could be.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Looks like another example of EU trying to something and making a total mess of it, but they won’t change course like VAT disaster,

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

    I have been going on about this for months. This site would be in big trouble for a start as it would be a breach of the rules for any of us to post links to news items on other websites.
    Would FrancisUrquhart having linked to what the EU has done on the Independent website be illegal?

    In which case how would people scrutinise their government if sharing news is illegal? Seems very dodgy.
    It would depend on the company. The Independent may decide not to. But the larger media companies have been pushing for this as they will then charge for links to their news sites. It means that any website such as PB will have to ban links or will risk being in breach of the law.
    Seems incredible undemocratic and a major violation of both free speech and the ability to share news critical of government's.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    Pour que l'orage s'annonce.

    Anyone else get the feeling that everyone is just going through the motions at the moment until the storm hits later in the year. I had previously thought that TM could pull off Brexit but there is only so much under performance possible. Events will start to overtake her and I cant see her lasting the year anymore.

    The storm hitting is an important step in resolving the Brexit contradictions. Which necessarily will be resolved as nothing exists in a vacuum. As long as things coast along the contradictions can be denied, as demonstrated by today's vote in the Commons. I expect we will end up with a lot less out of the EU relationship, at a similar monetary cost and a higher cost in jobs, prosperity and opportunities. At the same time we will lose a big say over what happens to us. It's a dumb deal. I hate to speak for Leavers, but I suspect they will be OK with it as we will be out of the hated EU, while Remainers will be relieved it's not worse.

    Mediocrity rules. Theresa May should be well placed.
    A BINO frankly would probably command a majority in the country, if most remainers would be happy with the INO part and enough Leavers were satisfied with the B part. Obviously neither of those will be true completely, and for all the talk of things being soft it doesn't seem like if there is a deal (I still put that as less likely than no deal, personally) it will be INO as it could be.
    BINO would cause some weird political combustions. Daniel Hannan's eyes would open so wide they'd take up half his face.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    Pour que l'orage s'annonce.

    Anyone else get the feeling that everyone is just going through the motions at the moment until the storm hits later in the year. I had previously thought that TM could pull off Brexit but there is only so much under performance possible. Events will start to overtake her and I cant see her lasting the year anymore.

    The storm hitting is an important step in resolving the Brexit contradictions. Which necessarily will be resolved as nothing exists in a vacuum. As long as things coast along the contradictions can be denied, as demonstrated by today's vote in the Commons. I expect we will end up with a lot less out of the EU relationship, at a similar monetary cost and a higher cost in jobs, prosperity and opportunities. At the same time we will lose a big say over what happens to us. It's a dumb deal. I hate to speak for Leavers, but I suspect they will be OK with it as we will be out of the hated EU, while Remainers will be relieved it's not worse.

    Mediocrity rules. Theresa May should be well placed.
    A BINO frankly would probably command a majority in the country, if most remainers would be happy with the INO part and enough Leavers were satisfied with the B part. Obviously neither of those will be true completely, and for all the talk of things being soft it doesn't seem like if there is a deal (I still put that as less likely than no deal, personally) it will be INO as it could be.
    If there is still FOM it won’t....
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,183
    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic:

    We just had a friend nip around for a cup of tea, and a few minutes after she had left she was back with a flat tyre.

    A couple of things that interested me:

    *) I haven't had to change a tyre for twenty years, and neither Mrs J or our guest had ever changed one. In that time I've probably done 200,000+ miles Are flat tyres a lot less common than they were (perhaps due to improved tyre belts)?

    *) Space saver tyres are weird and unholy (pun intended).

    I know it's a bugger to get them off when they do go flat, due to the tightness of the nuts when they're put on.

    I think I've changed one tyre in the last ten years. I've also had a slow puncture that I got the tyre place to deal with (in fact I've got another one now I need to get sorted).

    I think they are less common. Maybe smoother road surfaces and fewer glass bottles have an effect as well?
    Not only that, but cars in general are far more reliable. The hard shoulders used to be littered with breakdowns - you hardly ever see one nowadays.

    My car has managed about 40,000 miles with almost nothing done to it. My bike, on the other hand, in the 1,500 miles or so I've done on it in the year and a bit since I bought it has had three punctures and needed a new chain, new brake blocks and a new cassette. It needs a service about every 500 miles. It's as expensive as buying petrol for a car.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770

    Looks like another example of EU trying to something and making a total mess of it, but they won’t change course like VAT disaster,

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

    I have been going on about this for months. This site would be in big trouble for a start as it would be a breach of the rules for any of us to post links to news items on other websites.
    Would FrancisUrquhart having linked to what the EU has done on the Independent website be illegal?

    In which case how would people scrutinise their government if sharing news is illegal? Seems very dodgy.
    It would depend on the company. The Independent may decide not to. But the larger media companies have been pushing for this as they will then charge for links to their news sites. It means that any website such as PB will have to ban links or will risk being in breach of the law.
    Seems incredible undemocratic and a major violation of both free speech and the ability to share news critical of government's.
    Or news supportive of the government. Or any news at all.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    Re the link tax, my guess is that the majority of publications will say "It's OK to post links to our content, whoever you are, and there's nothing to pay". And a few organisations, who think they're special, will attempt to charge. And will therefore not get listed in search results, and will eventually realise they were idiots.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    Pour que l'orage s'annonce.

    Anyone else get the feeling that everyone is just going through the motions at the moment until the storm hits later in the year. I had previously thought that TM could pull off Brexit but there is only so much under performance possible. Events will start to overtake her and I cant see her lasting the year anymore.

    The storm hitting is an important step in resolving the Brexit contradictions. Which necessarily will be resolved as nothing exists in a vacuum. As long as things coast along the contradictions can be denied, as demonstrated by today's vote in the Commons. I expect we will end up with a lot less out of the EU relationship, at a similar monetary cost and a higher cost in jobs, prosperity and opportunities. At the same time we will lose a big say over what happens to us. It's a dumb deal. I hate to speak for Leavers, but I suspect they will be OK with it as we will be out of the hated EU, while Remainers will be relieved it's not worse.

    Mediocrity rules. Theresa May should be well placed.
    A BINO frankly would probably command a majority in the country, if most remainers would be happy with the INO part and enough Leavers were satisfied with the B part. Obviously neither of those will be true completely, and for all the talk of things being soft it doesn't seem like if there is a deal (I still put that as less likely than no deal, personally) it will be INO as it could be.
    BINO isn't available precisely because we will be rule takers. The EU will set the rules not particularly to our advantage. But we need to sign up to the rules if we are going to carry on roughly as at present. No deal is the absence of an arrangement and is therefore unsustainable. Actually a deal is entirely reachable but we need to understand that it is relative to nothing, not relative to the status quo. The negotiating space between better than nothing and as good as what we had is a big one. I am pretty sure we will end up in the middle: much better than nothing but much worse than what we had. That isn't BINO however.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Oh dear! She seems stressed out. Only natural I suppose. Not very convincing.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic:

    We just had a friend nip around for a cup of tea, and a few minutes after she had left she was back with a flat tyre.

    A couple of things that interested me:

    *) I haven't had to change a tyre for twenty years, and neither Mrs J or our guest had ever changed one. In that time I've probably done 200,000+ miles Are flat tyres a lot less common than they were (perhaps due to improved tyre belts)?

    *) Space saver tyres are weird and unholy (pun intended).

    I know it's a bugger to get them off when they do go flat, due to the tightness of the nuts when they're put on.

    I think I've changed one tyre in the last ten years. I've also had a slow puncture that I got the tyre place to deal with (in fact I've got another one now I need to get sorted).

    I think they are less common. Maybe smoother road surfaces and fewer glass bottles have an effect as well?
    Not only that, but cars in general are far more reliable. The hard shoulders used to be littered with breakdowns - you hardly ever see one nowadays.

    My car has managed about 40,000 miles with almost nothing done to it. My bike, on the other hand, in the 1,500 miles or so I've done on it in the year and a bit since I bought it has had three punctures and needed a new chain, new brake blocks and a new cassette. It needs a service about every 500 miles. It's as expensive as buying petrol for a car.
    That's nothing. I walk, and I need servicing about every 20-25 miles. with a bit of fuel and a long rest to cool down - I'm so unreliable that I should really trade myself in and buy a newer model ...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    rcs1000 said:

    Re the link tax, my guess is that the majority of publications will say "It's OK to post links to our content, whoever you are, and there's nothing to pay". And a few organisations, who think they're special, will attempt to charge. And will therefore not get listed in search results, and will eventually realise they were idiots.

    I seemed to remember this came about because German and Spanish media organisations spat their dummy that google “news” was basically cribbing the headline and the first paragraph, claimed they were losing views and they eventually got them banned from doing it there...then they realised their traffic went through the floor.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770

    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    Pour que l'orage s'annonce.

    Anyone else get the feeling that everyone is just going through the motions at the moment until the storm hits later in the year. I had previously thought that TM could pull off Brexit but there is only so much under performance possible. Events will start to overtake her and I cant see her lasting the year anymore.

    The storm hitting is an important step in resolving the Brexit contradictions. Which necessarily will be resolved as nothing exists in a vacuum. As long as things coast along the contradictions can be denied, as demonstrated by today's vote in the Commons. I expect we will end up with a lot less out of the EU relationship, at a similar monetary cost and a higher cost in jobs, prosperity and opportunities. At the same time we will lose a big say over what happens to us. It's a dumb deal. I hate to speak for Leavers, but I suspect they will be OK with it as we will be out of the hated EU, while Remainers will be relieved it's not worse.

    Mediocrity rules. Theresa May should be well placed.
    A BINO frankly would probably command a majority in the country, if most remainers would be happy with the INO part and enough Leavers were satisfied with the B part. Obviously neither of those will be true completely, and for all the talk of things being soft it doesn't seem like if there is a deal (I still put that as less likely than no deal, personally) it will be INO as it could be.
    If there is still FOM it won’t....
    There's FOM, and there's FOM.

    I suspect that you could have a situation like US-Canada, where for a Canadian to work in the US, they need to find an employer who's willing to go on-line, register as an employer who hires Canadians, fill out an on-line form, and the Canadian needs to be criminal record free. It's essentially FoM, except that for low skilled/wage jobs, especially ones that pay by the hour and where the employee might not be around for long, most businesses can't be bothered. But, if you're hiring a software developer and paying $100k, it's hoop that people will jump through.

    That would probably satisfy a substantial minority, and if it didn't restrict immigration enough, you could limit it to certain sectors, or have minimum salary or qualifications requirements.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Off-topic:

    We just had a friend nip around for a cup of tea, and a few minutes after she had left she was back with a flat tyre.

    A couple of things that interested me:

    *) I haven't had to change a tyre for twenty years, and neither Mrs J or our guest had ever changed one. In that time I've probably done 200,000+ miles Are flat tyres a lot less common than they were (perhaps due to improved tyre belts)?

    *) Space saver tyres are weird and unholy (pun intended).

    Had a puncture last year in Ireland and couldn't fix it because couldn't find locking wheel nut key. AA man fixed it by finding hole, pushing in through hole what looked like a 12 in strip torn off a black plastic bin liner, reflating tyre. He said that was a perfectly good permanent repair.

    Most annoying thing about all this was I told the hire company they were useless and they told me it is their deliberate policy not to put the key thingy in the car, and that I had signed a bit of paper acknowledging there wasn't one. My mind is still boggling about this, but because I had a plane to catch I never found out why.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    Pour que l'orage s'annonce.

    Anyone else get the feeling that everyone is just going through the motions at the moment until the storm hits later in the year. I had previously thought that TM could pull off Brexit but there is only so much under performance possible. Events will start to overtake her and I cant see her lasting the year anymore.

    The storm hitting is an important step in resolving the Brexit contradictions. Which necessarily will be resolved as nothing exists in a vacuum. As long as things coast along the contradictions can be denied, as demonstrated by today's vote in the Commons. I expect we will end up with a lot less out of the EU relationship, at a similar monetary cost and a higher cost in jobs, prosperity and opportunities. At the same time we will lose a big say over what happens to us. It's a dumb deal. I hate to speak for Leavers, but I suspect they will be OK with it as we will be out of the hated EU, while Remainers will be relieved it's not worse.

    Mediocrity rules. Theresa May should be well placed.
    A BINO frankly would probably command a majority in the country, if most remainers would be happy with the INO part and enough Leavers were satisfied with the B part. Obviously neither of those will be true completely, and for all the talk of things being soft it doesn't seem like if there is a deal (I still put that as less likely than no deal, personally) it will be INO as it could be.
    BINO isn't available precisely because we will be rule takers. The EU will set the rules not particularly to our advantage. But we need to sign up to the rules if we are going to carry on roughly as at present. No deal is the absence of an arrangement and is therefore unsustainable. Actually a deal is entirely reachable but we need to understand that it is relative to nothing, not relative to the status quo. The negotiating space between better than nothing and as good as what we had is a big one. I am pretty sure we will end up in the middle: much better than nothing but much worse than what we had. That isn't BINO however.
    I don't think we will get BINO (though if we do get a deal some will call it that - we had nonsense right from the start about what constituted 'true' Brexit as if only one way could be that), just that in theory it would command enough support - but there was no path to thatm nor would it necessarily be a good idea.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    There it is again -- the smooth and orderly Brexit promised half a dozen times in the manifesto.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Scott_P said:
    It has been abundantly clear for some time that we aren't willing to pay more for the armed forces, not to the significant degree many things would require. In fairness is there much money left once we pay for all the white elephant schemes?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,763
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    hunchman said:

    Looks like another example of EU trying to something and making a total mess of it, but they won’t change course like VAT disaster,

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

    I have been going on about this for months. This site would be in big trouble for a start as it would be a breach of the rules for any of us to post links to news items on other websites.
    Totally agree mr tyndall .That was the real reason for GDPR in the first place so an anti EU marketing campaign would be illegal. Not that many noticed!
    You know, I have been over almost all of the GDPR. I must have missed that bit.

    It's a really crap piece of legislation, drafted by people with minimal contact with the real world who don't ever seem to have been in business. It makes our economy less competitive, it increases bureaucracy and it increases the cost of services for us all for no obvious benefit. Really, really stupid. But it does not prevent marketing for or against the EU.
    I've not been clear on what it is supposed to prevent really. My understanding was that human error was behind most data breaches and poor data management and record keeping, and increasing the bureaucracy of it doesn't seem like it will fix that.
    It’s designed to prevent the abuse of your personal data by companies which collate big data sets and either use them themselves or sell them to others. Rather than focus on this abuse it has got every small business, charity, school and organisation going mental wasting time developing policies for data they often didn’t even appreciate they had, let alone made any attempt to monetise. An astonishing waste of resources.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    rcs1000 said:

    Re the link tax, my guess is that the majority of publications will say "It's OK to post links to our content, whoever you are, and there's nothing to pay". And a few organisations, who think they're special, will attempt to charge. And will therefore not get listed in search results, and will eventually realise they were idiots.

    And how do we know the difference? How does the average pb poster (or even Plato) know which links we can post and which we cannot? Google can no doubt have a list but most people and most sites are not Google.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    There it is again -- the smooth and orderly Brexit promised half a dozen times in the manifesto.
    The spineless rebels caved in. All bluster, no spine !
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Scott_P said:
    As I've been saying for some time, Labour needs to attack the Conservatives for their shocking defence cuts.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It has been abundantly clear for some time that we aren't willing to pay more for the armed forces, not to the significant degree many things would require. In fairness is there much money left once we pay for all the white elephant schemes?
    Apparently all our spare money is going on the NHS. In a week when there has been a report about one trust ending prematurely the lives of between 450 and 600 people.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770

    rcs1000 said:

    Re the link tax, my guess is that the majority of publications will say "It's OK to post links to our content, whoever you are, and there's nothing to pay". And a few organisations, who think they're special, will attempt to charge. And will therefore not get listed in search results, and will eventually realise they were idiots.

    And how do we know the difference? How does the average pb poster (or even Plato) know which links we can post and which we cannot? Google can no doubt have a list but most people and most sites are not Google.
    There'll be a plugin for Vanilla/Wordpress/etc. within about 12 hours of the link tax existing that will strip out links to 'taxable' content. Google will probably provide it as a web service, because it maximises the pain that will be felt by those who attempt to charge.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Who says parliamentary procedural language can get confusing?

    Message from the Commons

    That they agree to certain amendments made by the Lords in lieu of amendments made by the Lords to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to which they disagreed.

    They agree to the amendment made by the Lords to their amendment made in lieu of an amendment made by the Lords to which they disagreed.

    And they agree to the amendments made by the Lords to their amendments made in lieu of the amendment made by the Lords to which they disagreed with amendments to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships.


    https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9942fed9-ad28-4b55-8811-5e61b053436a

    19:30:36

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It has been abundantly clear for some time that we aren't willing to pay more for the armed forces, not to the significant degree many things would require. In fairness is there much money left once we pay for all the white elephant schemes?
    Apparently all our spare money is going on the NHS. In a week when there has been a report about one trust ending prematurely the lives of between 450 and 600 people.
    I believe you mean "one trust helping the government with its goal of reducing pensions payments as a percentage of GDP."
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    DavidL said:

    hunchman said:

    Looks like another example of EU trying to something and making a total mess of it, but they won’t change course like VAT disaster,

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/eu-article-11-13-latest-gdpr-link-tax-internet-juri-censorship-a8407566.html

    I have been going on about this for months. This site would be in big trouble for a start as it would be a breach of the rules for any of us to post links to news items on other websites.
    Totally agree mr tyndall .That was the real reason for GDPR in the first place so an anti EU marketing campaign would be illegal. Not that many noticed!
    You know, I have been over almost all of the GDPR. I must have missed that bit.

    It's a really crap piece of legislation, drafted by people with minimal contact with the real world who don't ever seem to have been in business. It makes our economy less competitive, it increases bureaucracy and it increases the cost of services for us all for no obvious benefit. Really, really stupid. But it does not prevent marketing for or against the EU.
    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/gdpr-its-here-like-it-or-not/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It has been abundantly clear for some time that we aren't willing to pay more for the armed forces, not to the significant degree many things would require. In fairness is there much money left once we pay for all the white elephant schemes?
    Apparently all our spare money is going on the NHS. In a week when there has been a report about one trust ending prematurely the lives of between 450 and 600 people.
    I believe you mean "one trust helping the government with its goal of reducing pensions payments as a percentage of GDP."
    Or “one trust killing people. For free, unlike those profiteering Dignitas people.”
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    rcs1000 said:

    Re the link tax, my guess is that the majority of publications will say "It's OK to post links to our content, whoever you are, and there's nothing to pay". And a few organisations, who think they're special, will attempt to charge. And will therefore not get listed in search results, and will eventually realise they were idiots.

    And how do we know the difference? How does the average pb poster (or even Plato) know which links we can post and which we cannot? Google can no doubt have a list but most people and most sites are not Google.
    A few years ago in America some news websites started suing forums where their articles had been quoted upon. It was quite common to quote in full an article and link back to it and these sites started suing as quoting in full is a breach of copyright. They would trace back through the links to find who to sue.

    At a forum I posted in and was a moderator of the admin added the domain name of these sites to the site's swear word filter list. If anyone attempted to link to that news site then the domain name would be asterisked out.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,061
    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It has been abundantly clear for some time that we aren't willing to pay more for the armed forces, not to the significant degree many things would require. In fairness is there much money left once we pay for all the white elephant schemes?
    Apparently all our spare money is going on the NHS. In a week when there has been a report about one trust ending prematurely the lives of between 450 and 600 people.
    I believe you mean "one trust helping the government with its goal of reducing pensions payments as a percentage of GDP."
    Or “one trust killing people. For free, unlike those profiteering Dignitas people.”
    The Gosport cases were between 1988 and 2000, so mostly occurred more than 2 decades ago.

    Lessons to be learned, but much may have been superseded by current practice.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    rcs1000 said:

    Re the link tax, my guess is that the majority of publications will say "It's OK to post links to our content, whoever you are, and there's nothing to pay". And a few organisations, who think they're special, will attempt to charge. And will therefore not get listed in search results, and will eventually realise they were idiots.

    And how do we know the difference? How does the average pb poster (or even Plato) know which links we can post and which we cannot? Google can no doubt have a list but most people and most sites are not Google.
    A few years ago in America some news websites started suing forums where their articles had been quoted upon. It was quite common to quote in full an article and link back to it and these sites started suing as quoting in full is a breach of copyright. They would trace back through the links to find who to sue.

    At a forum I posted in and was a moderator of the admin added the domain name of these sites to the site's swear word filter list. If anyone attempted to link to that news site then the domain name would be asterisked out.
    People on a certain gaming forum I know go too far the other way: if an article criticises their game, they'll copy large tracts of the text and not link to the original article as they don't want the organisation that has dared criticise their game to get ad revenue.

    It's a sh*tty thing to do.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It has been abundantly clear for some time that we aren't willing to pay more for the armed forces, not to the significant degree many things would require. In fairness is there much money left once we pay for all the white elephant schemes?
    Apparently all our spare money is going on the NHS. In a week when there has been a report about one trust ending prematurely the lives of between 450 and 600 people.
    It depends what you mean by "prematurely".
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    From BBC News: “ there was an institutionalised practice of shortening lives”.

    An institutionalised practice of killing, in other words.

    Shocking. Really shocking.

    Mark Easton is giving the NHS both barrels on its culture of placing its reputation above the interests of its patients and not taking whistleblowers seriously:

    “A long-standing and dangerous weakness”.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    On the subject of gaming, has anyone played Frostpunk yet? It looks great, but I'm rather busy at the moment...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It has been abundantly clear for some time that we aren't willing to pay more for the armed forces, not to the significant degree many things would require. In fairness is there much money left once we pay for all the white elephant schemes?
    Apparently all our spare money is going on the NHS. In a week when there has been a report about one trust ending prematurely the lives of between 450 and 600 people.
    It depends what you mean by "prematurely".
    I used to be a real dick at university, and would ask people - in an apprently sincere tone - about what they thought about post natal abortion, or capital punishment in schools.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:



    The storm hitting is an important step in resolving the Brexit contradictions. Which necessarily will be resolved as nothing exists in a vacuum. As long as things coast along the contradictions can be denied, as demonstrated by today's vote in the Commons. I expect we will end up with a lot less out of the EU relationship, at a similar monetary cost and a higher cost in jobs, prosperity and opportunities. At the same time we will lose a big say over what happens to us. It's a dumb deal. I hate to speak for Leavers, but I suspect they will be OK with it as we will be out of the hated EU, while Remainers will be relieved it's not worse.

    Mediocrity rules. Theresa May should be well placed.

    A BINO frankly would probably command a majority in the country, if most remainers would be happy with the INO part and enough Leavers were satisfied with the B part. Obviously neither of those will be true completely, and for all the talk of things being soft it doesn't seem like if there is a deal (I still put that as less likely than no deal, personally) it will be INO as it could be.
    If there is still FOM it won’t....
    There's FOM, and there's FOM.

    I suspect that you could have a situation like US-Canada, where for a Canadian to work in the US, they need to find an employer who's willing to go on-line, register as an employer who hires Canadians, fill out an on-line form, and the Canadian needs to be criminal record free. It's essentially FoM, except that for low skilled/wage jobs, especially ones that pay by the hour and where the employee might not be around for long, most businesses can't be bothered. But, if you're hiring a software developer and paying $100k, it's hoop that people will jump through.

    That would probably satisfy a substantial minority, and if it didn't restrict immigration enough, you could limit it to certain sectors, or have minimum salary or qualifications requirements.
    The TN visa is rather more limited than you describe: for instance only a defined list of occupations are eligible and software developer is not one of them. Of course in practice you’ll run across plenty of Canadian software devs in any US tech company, but if you look up their job titles you’ll find they’ve been hired as “systems analysts” or some other occupation that is on the list.

    The problem is that if trade relations with Canada deteriorate further, it’s going to be pretty tempting for the Trump administration to start auditing Canadian TN holders to see if they really are doing the job they were hired for.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It has been abundantly clear for some time that we aren't willing to pay more for the armed forces, not to the significant degree many things would require. In fairness is there much money left once we pay for all the white elephant schemes?
    Apparently all our spare money is going on the NHS. In a week when there has been a report about one trust ending prematurely the lives of between 450 and 600 people.
    I believe you mean "one trust helping the government with its goal of reducing pensions payments as a percentage of GDP."
    Or “one trust killing people. For free, unlike those profiteering Dignitas people.”
    The Gosport cases were between 1988 and 2000, so mostly occurred more than 2 decades ago.

    Lessons to be learned, but much may have been superseded by current practice.
    Genuine question: do you think there is a good whistleblowing culture now within the NHS?

    The fact that it has taken so long to uncover this and that there has been no effective action taken against those responsible would tend to suggest not. And if so can we really say that lessons have been learnt?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Cyclefree, not really. You said you quite like FOM (fair enough). You then added that you paid little attention to the Leave campaign, and were away for the last week. Are you honestly claiming that you managed to avoid coverage of the Leave campaign - a global news story - to such an degree that in all truth you are not able to form an opinion on its content?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:



    rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It has been abundantly clear for some time that we aren't willing to pay more for the armed forces, not to the significant degree many things would require. In fairness is there much money left once we pay for all the white elephant schemes?
    Apparently all our spare money is going on the NHS. In a week when there has been a report about one trust ending prematurely the lives of between 450 and 600 people.
    I believe you mean "one trust helping the government with its goal of reducing pensions payments as a percentage of GDP."
    Or “one trust killing people. For free, unlike those profiteering Dignitas people.”
    The Gosport cases were between 1988 and 2000, so mostly occurred more than 2 decades ago.

    Lessons to be learned, but much may have been superseded by current practice.
    That is rather dismissive. Some in the NHS face very seriouus allegations and let's hope there is justice for the families
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited June 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    Re the link tax, my guess is that the majority of publications will say "It's OK to post links to our content, whoever you are, and there's nothing to pay". And a few organisations, who think they're special, will attempt to charge. And will therefore not get listed in search results, and will eventually realise they were idiots.

    The point of the law is to disallow opt out. No one gets to opt out of receiving the tax.

    But as I understand it it is not a tax on links, but would be a tax on links plus summary/extract.

    Fucking stupid idea either way.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Cyclefree said:

    From BBC News: “ there was an institutionalised practice of shortening lives”.

    An institutionalised practice of killing, in other words.

    Shocking. Really shocking.

    Mark Easton is giving the NHS both barrels on its culture of placing its reputation above the interests of its patients and not taking whistleblowers seriously:

    “A long-standing and dangerous weakness”.

    Don't, with respect, be silly. The facts as we know them so far are equally consistent with an institutionalised practice of not pointlessly prolonging lives at the expense of unnecessary suffering. Evidence first, verdict afterwards is an absolutely cracking arrangement.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It has been abundantly clear for some time that we aren't willing to pay more for the armed forces, not to the significant degree many things would require. In fairness is there much money left once we pay for all the white elephant schemes?
    Apparently all our spare money is going on the NHS. In a week when there has been a report about one trust ending prematurely the lives of between 450 and 600 people.
    It depends what you mean by "prematurely".
    If someone is given doses of painkillers for no good medical reason and die as a result, that is a premature death, to my mind.

    Do you have some other definition?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    RCS wrote Anazina is right about one thing: London is significantly smaller than people think, and walking around the central bits is almost always the quickest way to get around. I used to work on St James's Street in the West End, and for anything nearer than St Paul's in the City, I would walk. It would take me 30 minutes, and I'd know my arrival time to the minute, rather than taking a lottery with the tube or a taxi.

    —-

    London is a big city but the truth is that humans can cover ground quickly. As you say, if the journey is under two and a half miles, walk it. You see more, get there reliably on time, keep fit, and can make private calls while walking. Why people use the tube for short trips is beyond me.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    GDPR however is brilliant. Two huge thumbs up from me.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Cyclefree said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It has been abundantly clear for some time that we aren't willing to pay more for the armed forces, not to the significant degree many things would require. In fairness is there much money left once we pay for all the white elephant schemes?
    Apparently all our spare money is going on the NHS. In a week when there has been a report about one trust ending prematurely the lives of between 450 and 600 people.
    It depends what you mean by "prematurely".
    If someone is given doses of painkillers for no good medical reason and die as a result, that is a premature death, to my mind.

    Do you have some other definition?
    The good medical reason for giving doses of painkillers is easily detected from an analysis of the word "painkiller" if you think about it. Or perhaps you have first hand evidence that none of the decedents was suffering pain?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,001
    Withdrawal bill gone through the House of Lords and now awaiting Royal assent

    So TM survives and takes on the EU

    She just keeps rolling along
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re the link tax, my guess is that the majority of publications will say "It's OK to post links to our content, whoever you are, and there's nothing to pay". And a few organisations, who think they're special, will attempt to charge. And will therefore not get listed in search results, and will eventually realise they were idiots.

    The point of the law is to disallow opt out. No one gets to opt out of receiving the tax.

    But as I understand it it is not a tax on links, but would be a tax on links plus summary/extract.

    Fucking stupid idea either way.
    Extracts get posted here with a link all the freaking time. Same everywhere else.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,545
    edited June 2018
    FF43 said:



    BINO isn't available precisely because we will be rule takers. The EU will set the rules not particularly to our advantage. But we need to sign up to the rules if we are going to carry on roughly as at present. No deal is the absence of an arrangement and is therefore unsustainable. Actually a deal is entirely reachable but we need to understand that it is relative to nothing, not relative to the status quo. The negotiating space between better than nothing and as good as what we had is a big one. I am pretty sure we will end up in the middle: much better than nothing but much worse than what we had. That isn't BINO however.

    The first rule of Tory Brexit policy is that the ERG are in the driving seat. The moderates shake their heads, assure everyone that the headbangers will soon be put back in their box and then give way. This is the story of Cameron's leadership, the referendum, May's divisive approach and unachievable red lines, the triggering of article 50 without any preparation, and today once more the Tory moderates have shown themselves to be paper tigers. The ERG knows that the government will never be able to agree an acceptable withdrawal deal, they don't want a deal in any case. All they have to do is ensure that the chaos is prolonged until the date of withdrawal and they will get their wish. The country will go over the cliff. This must now be a very strong possibility.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of gaming, has anyone played Frostpunk yet? It looks great, but I'm rather busy at the moment...

    It does look interesting and I've got three months in which to not do very much coming up!
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Anazina said:

    RCS wrote Anazina is right about one thing: London is significantly smaller than people think, and walking around the central bits is almost always the quickest way to get around. I used to work on St James's Street in the West End, and for anything nearer than St Paul's in the City, I would walk. It would take me 30 minutes, and I'd know my arrival time to the minute, rather than taking a lottery with the tube or a taxi.

    —-

    London is a big city but the truth is that humans can cover ground quickly. As you say, if the journey is under two and a half miles, walk it. You see more, get there reliably on time, keep fit, and can make private calls while walking. Why people use the tube for short trips is beyond me.

    "can make private calls while walking"

    Not these days. The moped gangs will have your phone.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of gaming, has anyone played Frostpunk yet? It looks great, but I'm rather busy at the moment...

    It does look interesting and I've got three months in which to not do very much coming up!
    Have you played Subnautica and Detroit becomes human?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    Anazina said:

    RCS wrote Anazina is right about one thing: London is significantly smaller than people think, and walking around the central bits is almost always the quickest way to get around. I used to work on St James's Street in the West End, and for anything nearer than St Paul's in the City, I would walk. It would take me 30 minutes, and I'd know my arrival time to the minute, rather than taking a lottery with the tube or a taxi.

    —-

    London is a big city but the truth is that humans can cover ground quickly. As you say, if the journey is under two and a half miles, walk it. You see more, get there reliably on time, keep fit, and can make private calls while walking. Why people use the tube for short trips is beyond me.

    "can make private calls while walking"

    Not these days. The moped gangs will have your phone.

    Bluetooth headsets to make a comeback?

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of gaming, has anyone played Frostpunk yet? It looks great, but I'm rather busy at the moment...

    It does look interesting and I've got three months in which to not do very much coming up!
    Have you played Subnautica and Detroit becomes human?
    Detroit's the new David Cage game isn't it? Has he gotten any better at writing? Beyond Two Souls was terrible.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of gaming, has anyone played Frostpunk yet? It looks great, but I'm rather busy at the moment...

    It does look interesting and I've got three months in which to not do very much coming up!
    Have you played Subnautica and Detroit becomes human?
    Didn't fancy Subnautica, played Detroit - meh. God of War was good. Still hoping for a huge expansion to Monster Hunter World before the end of the year is out. Another 15 monsters and a couple of new locations would be great.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603


    Detroit's the new David Cage game isn't it? Has he gotten any better at writing? Beyond Two Souls was terrible.
    No, it's still predictable like the rest of his games.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    RCS wrote Anazina is right about one thing: London is significantly smaller than people think, and walking around the central bits is almost always the quickest way to get around. I used to work on St James's Street in the West End, and for anything nearer than St Paul's in the City, I would walk. It would take me 30 minutes, and I'd know my arrival time to the minute, rather than taking a lottery with the tube or a taxi.

    —-

    London is a big city but the truth is that humans can cover ground quickly. As you say, if the journey is under two and a half miles, walk it. You see more, get there reliably on time, keep fit, and can make private calls while walking. Why people use the tube for short trips is beyond me.

    "can make private calls while walking"

    Not these days. The moped gangs will have your phone.

    Care to calculate the odds of that happening?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770

    Anazina said:

    RCS wrote Anazina is right about one thing: London is significantly smaller than people think, and walking around the central bits is almost always the quickest way to get around. I used to work on St James's Street in the West End, and for anything nearer than St Paul's in the City, I would walk. It would take me 30 minutes, and I'd know my arrival time to the minute, rather than taking a lottery with the tube or a taxi.

    —-

    London is a big city but the truth is that humans can cover ground quickly. As you say, if the journey is under two and a half miles, walk it. You see more, get there reliably on time, keep fit, and can make private calls while walking. Why people use the tube for short trips is beyond me.

    "can make private calls while walking"

    Not these days. The moped gangs will have your phone.

    Bluetooth. It also avoids your arm getting sore.

    Also, as a rule in Central London you'll be travelling faster on foot than the guy on the moped, which reduces your risk somewhat.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited June 2018
    Anyone picked up Pillars of Eternity 2? The first was a game I remember enjoying quite a bit - the Baldur's Gate style of game is one I like, for all I never played BG back in the day - but I've not since had the interest to replay it. Conversely I just replayed Fallout 3 and all expansions, and am working through New Vegas again. They hold up pretty well.

    And replaying Darkest Dungeon - the game with the world's greatest narrator ever. Being trapped in a grim, never ending struggle with twisted monstrosities and being driven mad for some reason reminds me of PB
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited June 2018
    kle4 said:

    Anyone picked up Pillars of Eternity 2? The first was a game I remember enjoying quite a bit - the Baldur's Gate style of game is one I like, for all I never played BG back in the day - but I've not since had the interest to replay it. Conversely I just replayed Fallout 3 and all expansions, and am working through New Vegas again. They hold up pretty well.

    Fallout 76 doesn’t excite me.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re the link tax, my guess is that the majority of publications will say "It's OK to post links to our content, whoever you are, and there's nothing to pay". And a few organisations, who think they're special, will attempt to charge. And will therefore not get listed in search results, and will eventually realise they were idiots.

    The point of the law is to disallow opt out. No one gets to opt out of receiving the tax.

    But as I understand it it is not a tax on links, but would be a tax on links plus summary/extract.

    Fucking stupid idea either way.
    It is indeed a stupendously stupid idea.
This discussion has been closed.