Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Meanwhile, on Bluesky.



Was Stephen Bush and others saying this at the time of this NI cut, I wonder?

We're through the looking glass here, people.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 9:56 pm Meanwhile, on Bluesky.



Was Stephen Bush and others saying this at the time of this NI cut, I wonder?

They seemed to be too busy suggesting routes back for Sunak to save the election.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 10:16 pm We're through the looking glass here, people.

It's just fucking relentless, isn't it?

Youngian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 4:39 pm

I thinkit was on O’Brien this morning that somebody described his experience of jury service, and his fellow jurors, as this : In any jury, there are always two or three people that clearly don’t want to be there and would rather be anywhere else, two or three conspiracy-thory nutjobs, a couple of right-wing reactionaries, some people who will just go along with anything for the sake of a quiet life, and maybe one or two that you’d want keep sharp objects well away from. Which leaves you with perhaps three or four sane, rational, diligent, and conscientious individuals who will give the evidence presented due consideration and evaluation, and generally deliver the correct verdict.

A microcosm of the nation?
I don't like the sound of skimming back on jury trials as an upper middle class judge has a different experience of the honest British copper from working class people, particularly from ethnic minorities. Technically complex cases like fraud probably aren't suited to jury trials, though.

I would argue that these days a judge, who is trained to be impartial and will invariably have a desire to see justice done, is a better bet than a bunch of random bigots.

I lack any expertise in the area.
The prospect of trial before a jury has always troubled me.
You know those recurring nightmares, where you're unable to move, or standing in just your underwear...
My idea of hell is "being judged by your peers".

Much of it harks back to George Carlin:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

That's been reinforced by being a skilled specialist at work.
Herded into "cross departmental group trainings", I was frequently horrified by some people's inability at basic reasoning, or indeed parsing simple instructions.

The fact that a bent copper might aim to "fit up" the local lefty, aided by a bunch of numbskulls was always disturbed me.
I'm not even Irish.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 9:56 pm Meanwhile, on Bluesky.

Was Stephen Bush and others saying this at the time of this NI cut, I wonder?

Starmer has a point about the productivity downgrade, I think.

What's the big charge here? That he didn't want to go into an election getting killed on the most obvious taxes, which every other party said they wouldn't raise (including the Lib Dems and the Greens)? Some of the other tax rises have been sub-optimal, but they've managed to raise the extra money from them. I think a lot of people said they were "deluded" to think they would be able to do that.

The backlash from these commentators against suboptimal tax rises seems to be as big as the backlash against deeply irresponsible tax and spending cuts. It's mads. As Jonathan Portes said to me, the macro in the budget is fine. It's the immigration policy that's chucking away growth.

The OECD seems to have liked the Budget. Small upgrade of growth next year. It all helps.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-set ... 025-12-02/

Rachel Reeves seems to have actually won the girls’ chess championship she said she did in 1993, but wasn’t the best girl player because there were stronger players who didn’t enter the girls championship. Have I got this right?

Funny that it was ok for Grant Shapps to use multiple identities and fake testimonies a short time before he became a politician.

He's a Tory, a man and doesn't have a south London accent.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Dec 03, 2025 1:34 pm Rachel Reeves seems to have actually won the girls’ chess championship she said she did in 1993, but wasn’t the best girl player because there were stronger players who didn’t enter the girls championship. Have I got this right?

Funny that it was ok for Grant Shapps to use multiple identities and fake testimonies a short time before he became a politician.

Not quite sure that's how competition works

I worked with a former ABA heavyweight boxing champion. He won it in an Olympic qualifying year, when the cream of the crop were otherwise engaged.

It would be a brave man who questioned his qualifications. But then he is a man...

Ha ha, I thought of boxing. "He says he was heavyweight champion of the world, but he only won the WBO title"

Makes u think.

What Customs Union does JW want us to join?

There's the EU Customs Union, and the customs union that Turkey has. The first is impossible, the second is not put forward as a solution by anyone I've read. People seem to think that there's an easy deal that's basically the Single Market without freedom of movement. There isn't. Per David Henig, the EU would want us to pay a lot of money, have lots of regulation with no say, and probably allow a lot of freedom of movement as well. It wouldn't just be retired Kipper miners in Blyth who objected.

The funny thing about this attitude from people like JW is that they'd have been the first to call out eg Theresa May on cake and eat it, but push what's basically the same thing now.

I mean, this happened last week.

https://apnews.com/article/uk-eu-defens ... 9264319138

Talks on the U.K. joining a major European Union defense fund have ended without agreement

You can't really get much more urgent than Defence, and the UK clearly has a lot to contribute. A deal will probably be done at some point. But how can you look at this, and say, "Yeah, Starmer, just do a Customs Union". Or indeed look at the way some member states tried to pull the Commission back from what it had agreed with the UK on the reset?

I like this chap. Great tweet from our mate Zack that doesn't even make sense.

I'd forgotten about the Palestinian asylum case that Badenoch assailed Starmer with at PMQs, and which Starmer agreed had been wrongly decided. This was represented as "yet another low", Starmer "wrong", massive controversy.

The Government won the appeal. I have not seen anyone cover this and only found out about it because I happened to look at a lawyer's Bluesky.

The Telegraph went heavily on the Reeves chess story. Unfortunately for them their actual chess correspondent said the story was bollocks.

Seems with some stories and certain parties that it’s get the news out and check facts afte, or not even care.