16-JUL 2023 : LAB: 46% / CON: 26% / LDEM: 11% / REF: 6%

[Mark]

Mr Poppy said:

If the rules are not being applied then 'fair enough'. I have no problem with a 'free for all' and even set up a separate thread to allow a 'free for all' to keep the flaming/trolling off the main thread. I received a (temporary) ban for that and that thread was deleted. 

So is it a 'free for all' where the rules are not applied to anyone? Are the rules waived for certain people - possibly due to their political bias? I dunno, we're left to guess.

*** ADMIN ***

For clarity...

1. If a member is banned, or temporarily suspended, it is announced to the board. This is in order to avoid speculation of a member that has disappeared/is not posting.

If a member is sanctioned in any way, from a polite request up to anything just short of a suspension/ban, this is between me and that member and is NOT announced to the board by me.

If a member chooses to announce a sanction themselves, as several have done, that is entirely up to them. If that happens, I consider it public and reference it if I need to.

Again, if a member chooses not to make a sanction public, it is not made public by me.

I appreciate that sometimes it looks like rues aren't being enforced as any sanction short of a ban/suspension is made behind the scenes.

You are a generally decent lot and I have found that when members do step over the line, in most cases, the membber desists and/or apologises.

I admin this place on light touch moderation, but, the rules, however they are enforced, maybe too lightly for some, a separate 'free for all' thread where rules can be broken with impunity, is NOT going to happen.

The rules are NOT applied depending on the members politics. I make no secret of my own views, but, in regards to moderation, it is alignment neutral. I would have thought that my ruling on Steve's post re-Mercian would be evidence of that.

As to your own suspension, Mr Poppy, you are mis-representing what happened. It is not the first time you have brought this up. If you continue to do so (mis-represent), I will be forced to respond detailing the sanctions I gave out.

[steve]

Our right wing contributors seem awfully obsessed with the enforcement of all the rules.

Odd I though they believed in small government.

[Rafwan]

“ … a late night game of Hunt the Racist … “

Oh boo! That only ever lasts a couple of minutes!!

[Danny]

Aug 10, 2023 8:23:32 GMT steve said:

colin
Other than the trope " uncontrolled immigration " which has little actually to do with the issue of displaced people and asylum seekers...

We should perhaps remember that the total number arriving at the UK seeking assylum is negligible compared to the total number we have given visas to come here. The government could have reduce immigration to the UK, but its refugee policy is totally irrelevant. It chose not to cut immigration.

[neilj]

I don't think there is a lot of comfort for the tories here, bearing in mind Labour’s poll lead

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2023 12:49:24 GMT Mark said:

Aug 9, 2023 19:54:28 GMT @fecklessmiser said:

Well, that was a doddle, turned out I didn’t need any help after all.

However, I wanted to use a river photo or a lovely one of little Rosie. How does one move a photo from google photos to the required library please? 

Instructions are for desktp/laptop using Firefox. Should be the same or similar in other major browsers.

If you are using a phone, someone else will need to help you.

Go to the page where the photo you want is. Make sure it's the actual pic and not a thumbnail.

Right click on the pic. This will bring up a context menu. From this menu, select "save image as".

All you now have to do is save the pic rom the save dialogue that comes up.

One little tip you probobly won't need, some sites are disabling the right click menu. This is to stop you from taking stuff (pics etc). from their pages.

If this is the case (doubtful, as it's your own pics on a Google page, but, you never know), shift+f10 sometimes gets around this, as does shift+right click.

I’m actually using an iPad Mark. Dunno if that works in a similar way.

[Mr Poppy]

Aug 10, 2023 14:08:56 GMT Mark said:

Mr Poppy said:

If the rules are not being applied then 'fair enough'. I have no problem with a 'free for all' and even set up a separate thread to allow a 'free for all' to keep the flaming/trolling off the main thread. I received a (temporary) ban for that and that thread was deleted. 

So is it a 'free for all' where the rules are not applied to anyone? Are the rules waived for certain people - possibly due to their political bias? I dunno, we're left to guess.

*** ADMIN ***

For clarity...

1. If a member is banned, or temporarily suspended, it is announced to the board. This is in order to avoid speculation of a member that has disappeared/is not posting.

If a member is sanctioned in any way, from a polite request up to anything just short of a suspension/ban, this is between me and that member and is NOT announced to the board by me.

If a member chooses to announce a sanction themselves, as several have done, that is entirely up to them. If that happens, I consider it public and reference it if I need to.

Again, if a member chooses not to make a sanction public, it is not made public to me.

I appreciate that sometimes it looks like rues aren't being enforced as any sanction short of a ban/suspension is made behind the scenes.

You are a generally decent lot and I have found that when members do step over the line, in most cases, the membber desists and/or apologises.

I admin this place on light touch moderation, but, the rules, however they are enforced, maybe too lightly for some, a separate 'free for all' thread where rules can be broken with impunity, is NOT going to happen.

The rules are NOT applied depending on the members politics. I make no secret of my own views, but, in regards to moderation, it is alignment neutral. I would have thought that my ruling on Steve's post re-Mercian would be evidence of that.

As to your own suspension, Mr Poppy , you are mis-representing what happened. It is not the first time you have brought this up. If you continue to do so (mis-represent), I will be forced to respond detailing the sanctions I gave out.

Please do. For the clarity it would provide then please post the details of the only known (temporary) ban (ie the sanctions you have out). IIRC you have stated that I received the minimum ban (2days) although since my account was blocked then I had no way of knowing it was 'temporary' and gave up trying to access proboards for a much longer period.

I am merely seeking clarity and whilst I respect you choose not to give out details of any moderation you are conducting then by all means post the conversations that you/I and one other poster (who we have agreed I should never mention or engage with) had leading up to your decision to (temporarily) ban me.

[Deleted]

FFS give it a rest.

[steve]

Global Brexitania a magnet for talent!
Said nobody ever.

"Dearth of applicants to flagship UK scheme aimed specifically at prestigious prize-winners described as “embarrassing”

A fast-track visa route for prize-winning researchers has attracted just three applicants since it launched two years ago, Research Professional News has learned.

Launched in May 2021, the scheme aimed to bring the “brightest and the best” to UK by making it easier for award winners in the sciences, humanities, engineering, the arts and digital technology to apply through the government’s post-Brexit Global Talent route."

[Mr Poppy]

Hardly a surprise to the more politically engaged* but now it is getting some press then maybe a wider audience will become more aware of what has happened to LAB under Starmer's 'New' management:

Inside Keir Starmer’s plan to ‘annihilate the left’ and appoint ‘middle-class and dull’ candidate MPs
inews.co.uk/news/politics/inside-keir-starmers-annihilate-left-appoint-middle-class-dull-candidate-mps-2534996

* The LW-LAB twitterverse have noticed but TBC if the high loyalty amongst LAB'19 will realise LAB has changed since GE'19 or still vote LAB on the basis they are Red Tories rather than Blue Tories.

[oldnat]

Aug 10, 2023 9:39:26 GMT graham said:

Aug 10, 2023 0:22:37 GMT oldnat said:

My gut feelings owe a great deal to what did happen in the later stages of the 2017 election when signs of Labour momentum across GB persuaded significant numbers of 2015 SNP voters to switch back to Labour.It occurred later in Scotland than the rest of GB - and a further week of campaigning would probably have seen Labour emerge there with 10 - 12 seats.

Tactical voting in Scotland has not been confined to the Unionist parties. The SNP benefitted from Tory tactical votes at the Hamilton by election in 1967 and again at the 1973 Govan by election. There was also evidence at both 1974 elections of Tory voters switching to SNP to defeat Labour.

Your gut feelings may be caused by consuming lots of material that is well past its "eat by" date. No wonder you have digestive problems! 

Historical analogies from 50 years ago are only useful when the context today is similar to those far off times. The political climate in Scotland was very different in the 1960s and 70s from what it is today, and both the stances of the parties and the characteristics of their voters has changed significantly, along with the structure of governance and voting systems.

What remains true is that voters who are not tribally loyal to a single party (and there are many more of them now) are more willing to move their votes between the limited range of parties that they would consider voting for. The most fluid patterns appear among those who see voting Labour as an option. For those who prefer the UK Union, the SNP is their principal target so voting Con is reasonable if that is the strongest Unionist party. For those who prefer indy or stronger devolution, the SNP is the option to Labour.

Elections are always decided by the choices made by those who are not party loyalists. How different groups of them see the best way to cast their votes is what will decide the party balance at the next Westminster GE. It is far too early to say how they will respond to the narratives being offered to them.

Simply looking at the polls, it seems likely to me that voters in England have already decided on their choice, and a Labour government looks inevitable (remembering that they only have one legislature). In Scotland, the ex-Lab-then-Con voters have largely returned to Lab - which will see Lab making gains - but we need to wait to see how the ex-Lab-then-SNP voters make their choice.

I advise a diet of more fresh political food - the Scottish Election Studies provide nourishing fare.

[leftieliberal]

Aug 10, 2023 14:07:40 GMT neilj said:

Aug 10, 2023 11:58:53 GMT steve said:

Richard Cromwell had a bad press in my opinion
He's always portrayed as weak, reading up on him his mistake appeared to be trying to bring people together and heal wounds. Like many moderates he ended up pleasing no one

History is written by the victors, so not so surprising that Tumbledown Dick got such a bad write-up. Had it not been for WW2, Sir Winston Churchill might well have been unkindly compared with his father. As it was he took care to write the history himself, so ensuring that he got a good Press.

EDIT: Having read the Wikipedia article on Richard Cromwell, I think the best description of his fall is the result of a military coup.

[steve]

If people don't know and in the remote possibility that anyone cares can I point out that Rachel Swindon (Rachel Cousins) is a Corbyn supefan described as leading a Corbyn Twitter troll army.

Really surprising that she doesn't like Blair or Starmer.

[Mr Poppy]

Aug 10, 2023 7:52:04 GMT colin said:

There is another route being taken by people desperate to leave West Africa-out into the Atlantic !!

It doesn't get as much publicity as the Mediterranean routes but it is as deadly and makes one realise the determination of the people involved:-

www.infomigrants.net/en/post/50599/at-least-16-migrants-drown-after-boat-capsizes-near-senegals-capital

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66181218


www.infomigrants.net/en/post/50236/nearly-1000-migrants-died-on-africaspain-routes-in-six-months-ngo-reports

In the HoC debates then Theresa May made the valid point that closing one 'irregular' route (eg smuggling aboard lorries) pushes the criminal gangs to use other, more dangerous/expensive, routes.

I've mentioned the Morocco- mainland Spain border before and below highlights why numbers on that route have dropped and relates to your other post that if the problem is not WITHIN Europe (incl. UK and the sea borders into Europe) then its not considered a problem.

Spain/Morocco: No Justice for Deaths at Melilla Border
www.hrw.org/news/2023/06/22/spain/morocco-no-justice-deaths-melilla-border 

Obviously it would be nice to do something about the 'push' factors but the 'pull' factor is likely to dominate and hence why options like '3rd country schemes' (eg Rwanda) become something that we need to try and I'm fairly sure others will quickly follow (eg Denmark who arguably came up with the idea first but are on 'hold' possibly waiting to see what the ECtHR decide when cases are brought to that court)

IF (and we'll only know once we try it) a '3rd country' scheme becomes a sufficiently high deterrent AND other enforcement reduces the viability of the criminal gangs business model then, maybe the crossings will stop or at least significantly reduce. 

[crossbat11]

Aug 10, 2023 14:54:32 GMT @fecklessmiser said:

FFS give it a rest.

Fair enough. I'll pack in posting.

[crossbat11]

Aug 10, 2023 13:54:19 GMT johntel said:

Aug 10, 2023 11:58:47 GMT leftieliberal said:

Any chance of organising the overnight stay in a canal tunnel where there is no wi-fi or mobile signal, so the rest of us can get a respite from certain people's postings? 

Unfortunately I understand the after dinner entertainment is a debate about COVID strategy led by Danny and Alec, followed by a late night game of Hunt the Racist :-(

A bit harsh on Jeremy Hunt, I think. He's useless but no racist.

[graham]

Aug 10, 2023 15:08:21 GMT oldnat said:

Aug 10, 2023 9:39:26 GMT graham said:

My gut feelings owe a great deal to what did happen in the later stages of the 2017 election when signs of Labour momentum across GB persuaded significant numbers of 2015 SNP voters to switch back to Labour.It occurred later in Scotland than the rest of GB - and a further week of campaigning would probably have seen Labour emerge there with 10 - 12 seats.

Tactical voting in Scotland has not been confined to the Unionist parties. The SNP benefitted from Tory tactical votes at the Hamilton by election in 1967 and again at the 1973 Govan by election. There was also evidence at both 1974 elections of Tory voters switching to SNP to defeat Labour.

Your gut feelings may be caused by consuming lots of material that is well past its "eat by" date. No wonder you have digestive problems! 

Historical analogies from 50 years ago are only useful when the context today is similar to those far off times. The political climate in Scotland was very different in the 1960s and 70s from what it is today, and both the stances of the parties and the characteristics of their voters has changed significantly, along with the structure of governance and voting systems.

What remains true is that voters who are not tribally loyal to a single party (and there are many more of them now) are more willing to move their votes between the limited range of parties that they would consider voting for. The most fluid patterns appear among those who see voting Labour as an option. For those who prefer the UK Union, the SNP is their principal target so voting Con is reasonable if that is the strongest Unionist party. For those who prefer indy or stronger devolution, the SNP is the option to Labour.

Elections are always decided by the choices made by those who are not party loyalists. How different groups of them see the best way to cast their votes is what will decide the party balance at the next Westminster GE. It is far too early to say how they will respond to the narratives being offered to them.

Simply looking at the polls, it seems likely to me that voters in England have already decided on their choice, and a Labour government looks inevitable (remembering that they only have one legislature). In Scotland, the ex-Lab-then-Con voters have largely returned to Lab - which will see Lab making gains - but we need to wait to see how the ex-Lab-then-SNP voters make their choice.

I advise a diet of more fresh political food - the Scottish Election Studies provide nourishing fare.

The 1974 elections saw the SNP become a major player in parliamentary politics for the first time. The October election that year saw the party win 11 seats on circa 30% of the vote - not so very far behind Labour in vote share or indeed what we are currently seeing in the polls. It was the era of 'Scotland's Oil' etc - though I do accept that we had not then reached the point of Independence appearing as an imminent prospect with few Tories so fearful of that outcome that they would vote Labour to beat the SNP. By late 1976 and 1977 there was much discussion of the SNP making further electoral advances at the following election and Independence appeared a lot closer , though their fortunes faded sharply in 1978 following the Glasgow Garscadden by election.In the event, the SNP suffered a serious reverse in 1979.

[alec]

Sounds like our Trevor has been busy complaining again. Funny, how the most aggressive types always seem to be the most likely to whinge.

Meanwhile, back on earth, or slightly above it, to be more accurate, this - www.theguardian.com/science/2023/aug/10/vigin-galactic-space-flight-vss-unity-landing

A deeply disturbing illustration of the folly of billionaires, and those who accommodate their fantasies.

Earth is burning up, but it's more important to get big dollar tourists to the edge of space for the ultimate 'experience'.

We are a bunch of total fuckwits. As the twitter wag recently said; the first planet to be terraformed? Earth.....

[oldnat]

Aug 10, 2023 17:00:10 GMT graham said:

Aug 10, 2023 15:08:21 GMT oldnat said:

The 1974 elections saw the SNP become a major player in parliamentary politics for the first time. The October election that year saw the party win 11 seats on circa 30% of the vote - not so very far behind Labour in vote share or indeed what we are currently seeing in the polls. It was the era of 'Scotland's Oil' etc - though I do accept that we had not then reached the point of Independence appearing as an imminent prospect with few Tories so fearful of that outcome that they would vote Labour to beat the SNP. By late 1976 and 1977 there was much discussion of the SNP making further electoral advances at the following election and Independence appeared a lot closer , though their fortunes faded sharply in 1978 following the Glasgow Garscadden by election.In the event, the SNP suffered a serious reverse in 1979.

Yes. I was there! (as they say). 

However, you confirm that you don't really understand the dynamics of politics in Scotland. In 1974, the SNP did make a breakthrough - mainly in previously Con seats. As much as anything else, that was a reaction among rural and coastal "Scottish Unionist Party" voters to the merger with the E&W Conservative Party, and the consequent change away from the (small "n") nationalist traditions of the Unionist party, as well as fears over Common Market membership, which was seen as detrimental to farming and fishing, and to the benefit of large urban interests.

While most of these seats went back to SCon in 1979, the SNP retained many of the voters that they had secured in 1974 and will, no doubt, take back most/all of those that they don't already hold, at the next GE.

All of which is irrelevant to the current question - how many seats will Lab take back from SNP next time?

You regularly mention 2017 but, once again, that is not a useful comparison. Once again, the gainers were Con - not Lab, whose vote share increased by only 2.8%, as Unionist voters rallied to the strongest anti-indy party, and the ridiculously unrepresentative 2015 FPTP result - SNP with 56/59 seats - became a little more realistic.

At the next GE, everyone agrees that Lab will make gains. In some constituencies, there are enough Unionists who voted Con last time who will vote Lab to defeat the SNP. What is unpredictable at the moment is the number of voters who are positive towards both Lab and SNP who decide to vote one way or another (or not vote at all). Some will be inclined to give kicking to both of their governments!

Your application of historical numbers to a very different scenario has limited value. Sociologists like to see patterns (even when they aren't really there). I'm a historian - and history is the study of unique events, taking place in their own context - so I'll avoid predicting the result until after it has happened!

[Danny]

News discussing the housing market. While house prices have started falling, rents are going up. There are a vast number of people in the waiting list for social housing and no prospect whatsoever that they will get it. Thus the advice to anyone who is in difficulties, to get themselves evicted and then present at the council for emergency accommodation.

It may be government is trying to get refugees out of cheap hotels, because it knows it will need the hotel places for homeless brits.

Regarding election prospects, the government has arranged a year's grace before people get evicted by their mortgage company. So with a bit of delay before they fall into arrears, that ought to take the crisis to after the next election. However it sounds like the rental sector is running to a different timetable, what with quick evictions and the shortage of property. I guess government doesnt care so much about these people specifically because they arent likely to be tory voters. But any knock on into the middle classes will be of concern because they are the swing group they have been losing steadily for decades.

[graham]

Aug 10, 2023 18:29:35 GMT oldnat said:

Aug 10, 2023 17:00:10 GMT graham said:

The 1974 elections saw the SNP become a major player in parliamentary politics for the first time. The October election that year saw the party win 11 seats on circa 30% of the vote - not so very far behind Labour in vote share or indeed what we are currently seeing in the polls. It was the era of 'Scotland's Oil' etc - though I do accept that we had not then reached the point of Independence appearing as an imminent prospect with few Tories so fearful of that outcome that they would vote Labour to beat the SNP. By late 1976 and 1977 there was much discussion of the SNP making further electoral advances at the following election and Independence appeared a lot closer , though their fortunes faded sharply in 1978 following the Glasgow Garscadden by election.In the event, the SNP suffered a serious reverse in 1979.

Yes. I was there! (as they say). 

However, you confirm that you don't really understand the dynamics of politics in Scotland. In 1974, the SNP did make a breakthrough - mainly in previously Con seats. As much as anything else, that was a reaction among rural and coastal "Scottish Unionist Party" voters to the merger with the E&W Conservative Party, and the consequent change away from the (small "n") nationalist traditions of the Unionist party, as well as fears over Common Market membership, which was seen as detrimental to farming and fishing, and to the benefit of large urban interests.

While most of these seats went back to SCon in 1979, the SNP retained many of the voters that they had secured in 1974 and will, no doubt, take back most/all of those that they don't already hold, at the next GE.

All of which is irrelevant to the current question - how many seats will Lab take back from SNP next time?

You regularly mention 2017 but, once again, that is not a useful comparison. Once again, the gainers were Con - not Lab, whose vote share increased by only 2.8%, as Unionist voters rallied to the strongest anti-indy party, and the ridiculously unrepresentative 2015 FPTP result - SNP with 56/59 seats - became a little more realistic.

At the next GE, everyone agrees that Lab will make gains. In some constituencies, there are enough Unionists who voted Con last time who will vote Lab to defeat the SNP. What is unpredictable at the moment is the number of voters who are positive towards both Lab and SNP who decide to vote one way or another (or not vote at all). Some will be inclined to give kicking to both of their governments!

Your application of historical numbers to a very different scenario has limited value. Sociologists like to see patterns (even when they aren't really there). I'm a historian - and history is the study of unique events, taking place in their own context - so I'll avoid predicting the result until after it has happened!

In 2017 a lot of 2015 Labour voters misdirected themselves believing that their preferred party was no longer in contention. They were caught out and surprised by the late Labour surge - but had they not been swung by Ruth Davidson's clear Tory momentum and instead stayed with  Labour , the party could reasonably have won at least 10 seats that year. Effectively by switching to the Tories they enabled the SNP to hold on to several seats which otherwise would have gone Labour. So much for tactical voting!

[steve]

Apparently Ukrainian forces have encircled Bakhmut, up to 50,000 Russian forces are reported to be cut off from reinforcements.

[mercian]

Aug 10, 2023 3:15:50 GMT jen said:

Aug 10, 2023 0:33:36 GMT mercian said:

Not that they've said. However their definitions of the word may differ from mine. I won't go into detail. I'd appreciate it if we let this dog lie. There will never be agreement and it makes Mark 's life difficult. They can think what they like, but of course they will be wrong.

"gyppo"

enough said?

Don't get me started on the trans cack.

You are an anti-British bigot, and to be quite honest, I don't understand why you don't fuck off to Russia, Putin loves people like you, he even funded your political cause.

I think I apologised for using a word that others found offensive. To me it was no different to calling a Londoner a cockney. I don't that's offensive, but perhaps it is this week. It's hard to keep up.

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.

[pjw1961]

Aug 10, 2023 10:51:23 GMT neilj said:

Aug 10, 2023 9:08:59 GMT steve said:

neilj

I thought it was Victoria
But how about Gordian I emperor of Rome including Britannia, 81 years old at death.

No, Richard Cromwell!

Neither of them was a head of state of Britain, which was the specific 'polity' mentioned.  

[bardin1]

Aug 10, 2023 18:59:51 GMT steve said:

Apparently Ukrainian forces have encircled Bakhmut, up to 50,000 Russian forces are reported to be cut off from reinforcements.

I don't think there is any evidence that that has happened Steve. They are making very slow advances, particularly to the South of Bakhmut but nowhere near enirlement as far as I can see from any of the reliable sources.

I wish it were true!

[oldnat]

Aug 10, 2023 18:56:43 GMT graham said:

Aug 10, 2023 18:29:35 GMT oldnat said:

In 2017 a lot of 2015 Labour voters misdirected themselves believing that their preferred party was no longer in contention. They were caught out and surprised by the late Labour surge - but had they not been swung by Ruth Davidson's clear Tory momentum and instead stayed with  Labour , the party could reasonably have won at least 10 seats that year. Effectively by switching to the Tories they enabled the SNP to hold on to several seats which otherwise would have gone Labour. So much for tactical voting!

How patronising!

[oldnat]

Aug 10, 2023 19:30:51 GMT pjw1961 said:

Aug 10, 2023 10:51:23 GMT neilj said:

No, Richard Cromwell!

Neither of them was a head of state of Britain, which was the specific 'polity' mentioned.  

The Ordinance for uniting Scotland into one Commonwealth with England was issued by the Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell on 12/24 Apr 1654

"His Highness the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, &c., taking into consideration how much it might conduce to the glory of God and the peace and welfare of the people in this whole island, that after all those late unhappy wars and differences, the people of Scotland should be united with the people of England into one Commonwealth and under one Government, and finding that in December, 1651, the Parliament then sitting did send Commissioners into Scotland to invite the people of that nation unto such a happy Union, who proceeded so far therein that the shires and boroughs of Scotland, by their Deputies convened at Dalkeith, and again at Edinburgh, did accept of the said Union, and assent thereunto; for the completing and perfecting of which Union, be it ordained, and it is so ordained by his Highness the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, by and with the advice and consent of his Council, that all the people of Scotland, and of the Isles of Orkney and Shetland, and of all the dominions and territories belonging unto Scotland, are and shall be, and are hereby incorporated into, constituted, established, declared and confirmed one Commonwealth with England; and in every Parliament to be held successively for the said Commonwealth, thirty persons shall be called from and serve for Scotland.

And for the more effectual preservation of this Union, and the freedom and safety of the people of this Commonwealth so united, be it ordained, and it is ordained by the authority aforesaid, that all the people of Scotland and of the Isles of Orkney and Shetland, and of all the dominions and territories belonging unto Scotland, of what degree or condition so ever, be discharged of all fealty, homage, service and allegiance, which is or shall be pretended due unto any of the issue and posterity of Charles Stuart, late King of England and Scotland, or any claiming under him; and that Charles Stuart, eldest son, and James, called Duke of York, second son, and all other the issue and posterity of the said late King, and all and every person and persons pretending title from, by or under him, are and be disabled to hold or enjoy the Crown of Scotland and other the dominions thereunto belonging, or any of them; or to have the name, title, style or dignity of King or Queen of Scotland; or to have and enjoy the power and dominion of the said kingdom and dominions, or any of them, or the honours, manors, land, tenements, possessions and hereditaments belonging or appertaining to the said Crown of Scotland, or other the dominions aforesaid, or to any of them, any law, statute, usage, ordinance or custom in Scotland to the contrary hereof in any wise notwithstanding.

And it is further ordained by the authority aforesaid, that the said office, style, dignity, power and authority of King of Scotland, and all rights of the three Estates of Scotland to convocate or assemble in any general Convocation or Parliament, and all conventional and Parliamentary authority in Scotland, as formerly established, and all laws, usages and customs, ordaining, constituting or confirming the same, shall be and are hereby and from henceforth abolished and utterly taken away and made null and void.

And that this Union may take its more full effect and intent, be it further ordained by the authority aforesaid, that the Arms of Scotland, viz. a cross, commonly called St. Andrew's Cross, be received into and borne, from henceforth in the Arms of this Commonwealth, as a badge of this Union; and that all the public seals, seals of office, and seals of bodies civil or corporate, in Scotland, which heretofore carried the Arms of the Kings of Scotland, shall from henceforth instead carry the Arms of this Commonwealth."

[mercian]

Aug 10, 2023 5:36:55 GMT steve said:

mercian
I really fail to see any relevance to your post about people living on the street and asylum seekers.
But I often fail to see what connections you are making on many things.

Firstly of course asylum seekers by the nature of the thing are homeless.
Secondly turning to rough sleepers, the cut in provision of services for the homeless is yet another failure of this regime.

However

Rough sleepers have the right to work, asylum seekers don't.
Rough sleepers have the right to benefit support( what there is of them)
Asylum seekers dont.
Rough sleepers can move location and seek alternative accommodation, Asylum seekers can't.

Do you see where this is going.

It's government policy to prevent asylum seekers from gainful employment pending the average 18 month assessment period of their claim.

If they were permitted to work during the period or at the very least it was reduced to the average 9 months in the rest of Europe, most of whom are processing considerably more claims than the UK, many of the issues wouldn't be relevant.

If safe methods of entry into the country were also provided for asylum seekers the " small boats" Tory click bait issue would also be removed.

What next from the false equivalency argument.

"Asylum seekers are treated better than the character in James bond who ended up in a pool of piranhas" .

It's just nonsense.

 You do make some valid points. I don't know much about the benefits system but I believe it's difficult to access at least some of it if you are of no fixed abode and it's certainly not so pleasant sleeping on a pavement as in a bed on a boat (and I've done both).
 I agree that the provision of accommodation for the homeless is shocking, which is kind of the point I was making, though I don't think it's entirely the fault of the present government. I checked, and according to Wikipedia there is one Rowton House left in operation (in Camden Town). Perhaps we need a modern-day Lord Rowton to set up hostels around the country. 

 EDIT: also barbara to save me writing the whole thing again (and any other posts I haven't yet reached from those who didn't like my post about homeless people.).

[steve]

bardin1
From the guardian

"Ukrainian forces have recaptured the heights over Bakhmut and are successfully encircling Russian troops in the city, a defence minister in Kyiv has said."

[mercian]

Aug 10, 2023 7:33:33 GMT crossbat11 said:

Crofty's typically witty "Midnight with Mercian" description of Mercy Man's regular nocturnal ramblings got me thinking of other alliterative UKPR posting patterns.

"Twilight with Trevor"

"After Dark with Dave"

"Isa for Insomniacs"

"A soiree with Steve'

"Canoodling with Colin"

"Joking with Jen"

"Jousting with jib"

There are probably many others.

Cobblers from crossbat?