Roadsternut

The UK voting public had the chance in 2011 to replace FPTP with AV. They resoundingly rejected the change in the national referendum.

Jimmy Savile apparently invented Disco, and Gary Glitter's songs still get played in the US. Savile lead an effective safety campaign to get everyone to use a seat belt (Clunk Click for every trip). But disco, songs and safety ads are not what these men will be remembered for.

"other assorted misfits and losers" Or did you think the groups you mentioned were winners?

Wait till the Serious Fraud Office (or other body) makes a request under the 1994 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty to colleagues in the FBI for unredacted files relevant to the case. The UK authorities will have a different frame of reference to the US. They might be interested in the relationship between Epstein and Oleg Deripaska, and Mandelson. Mandelson had resigned in 2008 over links to Oleg Deripaska. The Epstein files show Epstein was keen to set up a meeting with Deripaska, and was using Mandelson to help facilitate a visa. Hmm. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00411052.pdf

So you're saying, because you cared what he thought, you are not an "average American"?

Precisely the opposite for me, always a clueless GP who ends up being a block on a referral, because they refuse to admit to not knowing what they are doing. A GP made my mum a paraplegic through misdiagnosis. Wrongly interpreted a sore back as orthopedic rather than an infection. Prescribed oral morphine for pain, which depressed the immune system, allowing an ongoing infection to deliver the coup de grace to the spinal cord. Paraplegia in 48 hours, spinal cord dead from the torso down.

The UK has a MLAT with the US, meaning the UK authorities (eg Met PoliceSerious Fraud Office, High Court, DPP) can put in a MLAT request for all relevant/unredacted files from the FBI in relation to a case. The US doesn't really have the equivalent to the Met Police. The head of the Met Police is appointed by the Home Secretary, but can instigate action independent of government.

There are 3 ways for Starmer to "go". General Election, likely Spring 2029. Earlier if the government gets a vote of no confidence, which is unlikely. Resignation. He falls on his sword. He likely stays in post until Labour elects a new leader and goes to the Palace. Alternatively, the Cabinet and Labour's governing body appoint an interim leader. That is not necessarily David Lammy. Challenger and Party vote. A challenger secures support of 20% of the Labour MP. A left field name emerging is the Minister for the Armed Forces, Colonel Al Carns MC. A Royal Marine Commando, he won his Military Cross in Afghanistan, recently summited Everest on Xenon, currently deployed on Arctic training in Norway (he is still a serving reservist). A Scot, in a solid Labour seat, Selly Oaks. But unfortanately, thats not how the Labour vote works. If a challenger emerges, Starmer doesn't resign, it goes to a Party vote, Starmer against challenger. This makes it extremely unlikely a member of the Cabinet, like Streeting or Milliband, would be the challenger, because if they lose, they are likely to be on then back benches. In a Party vote, Rayner would beat Starmer, but she has to get 20% Labour MP support. Surprisingly, some Labour MPs don't consider that she is from the left of the party. I'm not sure its a done deal that she would get 80 MPs on board.

A little confused. Solovyov's parents split when he was 4, and there is no evidence he was raised by a wealth American living in the Soviet Union. Possibly you are confused about his relationship with John Hathaway, who was a Property Developer in Alabama, and got him a visiting lecturer role at Alabama State in 1990. Solovyov was sacked after one semester. Hathaway was a GOP supporter, and roped in Solovyov when he was in the US, to collect signatures in support of US troops. By 1996, Hathaway was a state senator in Maine,and ran for the US Senate. Allegations arose that in 1990, he had sex with a 12 year old in Alabama. No charges were pressed, but it ruined his campaign in the Primaries. In 2002, he thought about giving it another go, but nothing came of it. He went on to found a lobster company, it seems. When Solovyov found himself out of work, Hathaway gave him a job running his Huntsville property company. He returned to Russia after the 1991 coup, and hooked up with an Anglo-American, Colin Hammond, to start one of Russia's first recruitment firms (and supplier of disco gear), Meteor. By 1998, Solovyov basically stole the company from Hammond, telling him "Never trust a Russian, not even me....You take whatever you can take, but you will only keep what you can defend". https://holod.media/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2-people-1024x718-1-1.jpg Hathaway was rich, not that rich though. I think he might be the same sort of age as Solovyov. Solovyov has just been a grifter all his life.

You misunderstand the table then. Look up the paper then come back. 95% of the US taxi market is now controlled by two corporations. I find it difficult to believe that therefore if you book a cab with a local firm you will certainly have an illegal driver. Illegal aliens dont' have drivers licences, though isn't it super easy for High Schoolers in the US to get fake ID for beer? McLovin. If illegal aliens don't have licences, then corporate employers are ignoring that, and are culpable. No one is above the law. Small businesses by being small don't have an opt out. If the only way they survive is by paying slave wages and smuggling people in, then they deserve to go under. The onus is on them to prove their employees are legal. Sounds like you are soft on illegals.

Labour doesn't have an equivalent to the 1922 Committee, so doesn't have a mechanism for backbenchers to force a change in leadership. Essentially, they have to ask the Party Membership for permission. Any challenger has to have the support of 20% of Labour MPs to trigger a contest. The Leader is automatically on the ballot which goes to the Unions and membership. The MPs themselves have little say. The Tory system is better. MPs can force a PM out through a secret ballot, then elect a new leader. The Tory PM is PM at the pleasure of MPs (ie. he or she has to have the confidence of the Westminster MPs, who are elected by the people). The Labour PM is at the pleasure of the Labour Membership, not at the people who elected the MPs. Hence the Tories will also refer to the PM as First Among Equals (in cabinet). The last time Labour threw out one of its own leaders when PM was 1931 and Ramsey MacDonald, when the Parliamentary party opposed his cuts to the dole. MacDonald resigned as Leader, but formed a new National Government with the Liberals and Tories.

% Undocumented by area of employment, job title, educatonal level, and median salary for the job. Fairly self explanatory. For the full report, see Lisiecki, M (2025). The Role of Undocumented Workers in High-Growth Occupations and Industries Across the United States. CMS. No comment about relative lack of recent action against employers. ICE data shows in 2010, $6.95m was levied in fines for undocumented workers (the fines are based on about $3000 per worker, typically, with some exceptions), rising to $16.3m in 2014. Thereafter, ICE doesn't keep such good records. For 2025, ICE seems to have levied about $9m in fines on corporations, which seems paradoxical, if illegal immigration prior to 2025 was at an all time high. Anecdotally, ICE seems to be struggling to deploy sufficient numbers of field agents, hence recent announcements about the lifting of age restrictions and relaxation of fitness requirements, coupled with large cash sign on bonuses. Some reports indicate that background checks are not being performed properly. ICE redeployed office staff into the field, so this has likely lead to a concomitant reduction in actions against employers recruiting illegal immigrants, the people you referred profiting off the backs of the poor. Snakehead gangs in suits, if you will. Despite the lurid headlines, by and large, illegal immigrants are motivated by the same things as most people; the desire to have a better life. Corporations actively encourage the recruitment of illegal workers, such as asylum seekers. From what I see, a comon defence is "rogue managers". I don't believe that. Its on too large a scale to not believe that senior leadership is not at least turning a blind eye (which makes them guilty) to such employment practices. This is what provides the pull for people to break the law. Smash that, and you will deal with much of the issue, just like how the Mafia was smashed through going after the accountants. ESG is much derided, but its an effective tool. A corporation cannot say it produces products to a well managed standard if it has no idea who it employs (the common defence is that factory managers alone know who is employed). The DoD know exactly who they employ (how many illegal immigrants are in the US Army? None). There are almost 3 million people working for the DoD (or whatever its called now), and they effectively manage to not recruit illegal immigrants. Why can't someone like Tyson, headcount a mere 130,000, do the same (Tyson was one of those companies acquitted of employing illegals as they blamed factory managers)? Simple, establish documented hiring practices with responsibility right to the C-Level. Strengthen ISO-9001 (the US government can play a huge role here). Make a strengthened ISO-9001 a requirement of any corporation wishing to export goods to the US, that way the US will play a powerful role in improving employment practices around the world, at zero cost to it. And its a virtuous circle; improved job standards at home incentivises people not to emigrate. Yes, it will lead to an increase in the price of goods and squeezing of margins, but illegal migration is already costing each adult American about $600 in costs borne by the Federal and State authorities. I see one estimate for private industry to NOT employ illegals is anywhere from $380bn to $620bn. Which are big, scarey numbers But corporate profits in the US are about $3.3 trillion a year, another big number. Of course drilling into impacts on margins by industry is complex, and likely some industries, the labour intensive ones, will need to helping hand of government, to remain viable. Which I suppose what lay behind the Government's one time proposal to sell illegal immigrants to some farms, as some sort of modern version of indentured workers, indentured workers of course, coincidently, being the backbone of the early North American colonies.

2025 was a really good year for tourism. Travel was up nearly everywhere, resulting in a 4% increase in international arrivals. https://www.untourism.int/news/international-tourist-arrivals-up-4-in-2025-reflecting-strong-travel-demand-around-the-world

Moral equivalence at work. I suspect you think the allies were as bad as the Nazis. "Shock and Awe" had a different strategic objective. The major objective was to neutralise the Iraqi Command and Control, ahead of a blitzkrieg like operation. The collateral effect might have been suffering of ordinary Iraqis because they had no AC, but that was not the objective. And in fact, when the American troops first rolled into Baghdad, the general reaction of the population wasn't sullen defiance, but often rapturous welcome. Depiste Saddam's propagandising at the time, most ordinary Iraqis thought, depsite the bombs, the arrival of the Americans/coalition, was generally a good thing. That treasure might have been wasted in the months later. My brother was in Basra in the first April, securing the Airport. He remembered back in those days, Iraqi kids used to come wandering into the airfield, because the fence was all broken, trying to flog sodas to the troops working on the aircraft there. He did 2 more tours, with things becoming progressively worse. Its precisely the opposite from the Russians. What the Russians have done is switch to aerial attacks to batter the civilian population into submission, as their military are singularly incapable of succeeding against Ukrainian ground units. The timing of attacks on the grid is not some tactic ahead of a lightening Russian advance (they failed to do that at all in Feb 2022), but chosen during the coldest time of the year, to maximise civilian casualties. I doubt the Russians would have the same kind of welcome now. At the time, I was in defence, and was party to some of the underlying data that went into the "dossier". The data in it wasn't incorrect, but it was how it was presented. Coincidently, some years before, during the first Gulf War I knew some of the Iraqi students rounded up at Scottish Universities. They had fake credentials. They were all interested in studying botulinum toxin and mycotoxin, and the cover story was food safety. The head of the Iraqi BW program had trained at the University of East Anglia, specialising in plant toxins. UEA is also the number 1 place for botulinum research I was also able to see footage the UK government had obtained from Iran, or Iranian journalists entering the village of Halabja shortly after the attack. The British at the time were monitoring Iraqi Air Force Ops. They had some knowledge of Iraqi drills with respect to "special munitions"; the Iraqis followed similar protocols to the Americans and British. This fact was underlined by some marines who testified to Congress with respect to Gulf War Syndrome. They were part of a NBC unit and had dismounted, MOP3, not MOP4, into a munitions area in Southern Iraq, which looked rather familiar. In Halabja, the British knew the Iraqi airforce had attempted to bomb up some of their Migs with the "special munitions", but the weight restrictions meant they had to instead use their ex-RAF Hawker Hunters. Several bombing runs on the village were carried out, and the Brits counted them all. The Iranian news footage obtained helped identify the agent used. Firstly, the Iranians didn't drop dead, which told the investigators something about the agent used. Then the positions of the bodies showed many died very quickly. A concoction of agents, mixed munitions, were used, but the major one was VX. Sobering footage. Prior to GW1 ("Desert Storm"), the allies had no effective biological detection system. Trained for a war in Europe, NATO trained "survive to fight". The assumption was a chemical-biological saturated battlefield, there was no point trying to detect the stuff, as its already all around you. Suit up, and <deleted> into a noddy suit for the number of weeks WW3 was expected to last for (BAOR was expected to be wiped out after 3 weeks fighting if it happened). In Europe, the natural fauna creates such a high background, its really difficult to detect an attack, so no point trying. GW1 changed that assumption. Suddenly you were in a desert environment, with low bio background. You had a shot at detecting something. All the Americans had was a 10 year old prototype lab strapped to the back of an Isuzu truck that could drive up and down. The Brits used Army lab techs in Land Rovers to patrol the airfield in Bahrain, trying to see if they could get spikes in ATP using commercial instruments. Which had issues at low tide..... By the time GW2 happened, the technologies were more refined. The British had a fleet of mobile labs manned by the JT CBRN Regiment. Now the systems can be seen in the Imperial War Museum, on display. I understand the hesitation at the time. 911 happened because we took our eyes off the ball (Afghanistan) and allowed a dangerous group to fester, and launch a suprise attack that the various intelligence agencies failed to detect. The same was happening in Iraq. The sanctions regime was weakening, and Saddam was boasting that he was going to put back into product his extremely long range (and superb) South African designed artillery which he thought could hit Jerusalem (probably not). With Intel, there is never 100% certainty, just probability, and with iraq, there was fear of the unknown. I will go to my grave convinced there are WMD in Iraq, but they are buried, and the people who knew where they were buried are long dead. Prior to the invasion, the Iraqi Air Force had either fled to Iran, or it was buried. The Australians dug up carefully dismantled Foxbats, a decent aircraft. Why were they buried. I think the Iraqis thought they could go back, after after the Americans would get bored and left, dig them up, fly 'em.

So in Thailand you are fully behind closing down the cannabis shops, and general prohibtion. I think drug users should under go some sort of public punishment and drug dealers put to death. Remind people that addiction to chemicals is a sign of a weak character, and therefore to be shameful. People don't feel shame anymore. If there were no drug dealers, the issue will be sorted. Plus ban booze. Its not needed.

Why do you, and who cares what you think.

You're an American. You have no sense of what the British people think any more that what British know about how Americans think. We can debate politicians' positions, based on what they say and do. But I fear, Americans, despite their debating socieities, and the dirge that passes for TV debates, don't know what that is. hence confident American speakers regularly get ripped apart by 18-19 year olds at the Cambirdge/Oxford debating societies. The Prime Minister was asked about river pollution. And he answered back with a cheap joke about drug and defence policy. You think that's ok, apparently, to dodge the issue about water pollution, and instead indulge in a bit of cheap character assassination. That's how debate is handled in the US. Dodge the question, character assassinate. Transcript for the hard of hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMmDM_PvHyc Americans don't understand when political leaders try and explain policy to the voters. It doesn't matter that Polanski's policy might be unpopular; we will find out at the next election (I believe drug dealing should be a public hanging offence, drug possession should be a flogging offence, but that's just my view, which will not come into being. My views on the area being somewhere right of Ghenghis Khan's). But he's there trying to explain it, in a grown up fashion. Nothing he is saying is particularly original or novel. But that doesn't matter. He's got about 3 years to persuade me, and borrow my vote. I doubt I will be persuaded, but lets see. You have no right to lecture me about what you think the British people think. You have no idea. You are an American. I have no idea what Americans think. There are polls telling me that Americans are thinking in one way. But then I look at the current incumbant, and he tells me what Americans were thinking, a lot of them, in November 2024. I might conclude that you are a bunch of lunatics. But I might also conclude, as here, you lack comprehension, and you don't listen. Again, the quote coming from Polanski isn't about Green party policy; that's old news, and I don't think its really changed from whenever. The quote is Polanski's response to a sinking Prime Minister's cheap jibe that he is "high on drugs", as a way of showing he had no response to a question about agricultural waste pollution in waterways. Teetotallers should never have to apologise, nor explain themselves. At the next election, I doubt there will be a NATO. The US will exit the organisaton, and it will cease to be a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Its what the Boomers wanted all along.

Can't disagree with that. But how much of DHS's budget is spent on the investigation of white collar crime; those employers, particularly corporate, who tacitly support illegal immigration. But there is a lot of hot air about "flooding the zone" to punish businesses employing illegals. Find any cases from the last 18 months concerning a national fast food chain, major software house or cab firm. 76% of the cab market is Uber. Uber has never been convicted. McDonalds Corporation has never been fined. Its franchisees have, the most recent example being 2008, when a Nevada franchise was fined $1m, and allowed 12 months to pay it off. No tech firm has been convicted in the last 18 months.

I can declare I have never smoked a cigarette, a cigar, smoked a pipe, partaken in consumption of psychotrophic drugs. How is saying "alcohol and drugs are not for me" stealing someone else's excuse? Whats the issue here? In the interview he gave to the BBC, he voiced support for a policy, that's not terribly controversial view, expressed by those on both the left and right of politics, to relax the law on illegal drugs, specifically, legalisation and regulation, to take a public health approach. Not new, not novel. I think there are issues with it. But his comment about his personal experience of alcohol and drugs, was in retort to the Prime Minister, who from the Despatch Box, accused him of "high on drugs, soft on Putin", a rather hackney and corney joke, but one that could be seen as offensive. What's even crazier, is the PM came up with that line in response to a question from a Green MP that had nothing to do with drugs or Putin. The MP asked aquestion about strengthening legislation about pollution offences originating from agricultural run off (this is a really serious issue; in the South East of Engliand, Blue Baby syndrome has for for decades been considered due to contamination of the drinking water supply by fertilizer run-off (in South East England, most of the tap water is recycled, which has lead to escalating levels of nitrates)). Surely a question that most members of the house would fully support. Bizarrely, Starmer's response was "we inherited a mess" (agricultural contamination of drinking water predates changes to the old Water Boards), and then he decided to reference the Green Party's policy on heroin (again, a stance that has been expressed by many MPs over the years. For instance, David Cameron at one time took the view that heroin should be made available in "shooting galleries. The former Police Chief of Gwent called for legalisation). And the reference to Putin was about Polanski calling for the UK to leave NATO (not a view I would support, but these days, its not an uncommon view), for the US to evacuate its bases in the UK (again, don't agree with the view, but these days, its not an uncommon view) and for the UK to work towards nuclear disarnament through negotiation (which literally has been the cornerstone of Western defence police since Detente and the SALT talks). Again, we might disagree of the implementation, but these days, few would disagree that the world these days feels a hell of a lot less safe with all these nukes around, with some politicians now openly talking of "winning" a nuclear war. In opposition, Starmer could be capable of accurate, forensic questioning of government. In government, he's incapable of that, and in the example, failed to answer the question. You didn't even realise the context of Polanski's statement, and attacked that, rather than attacking a Prime Minister answering a question about polluted rivers with references to heroin and nuclear weapons. The problem is the unattributed original article was actually very misleading.

They might have been in the theatre, but I suspect most weren't actually watching. Just whip out the phones and catch up on TikTok/YT etc. "Aggressive focussed people"; thats your pidgeon English view of people in the military? Seems a rather narrow and unsophisticated view of the serviceman and servicewoman. Where on your aggression scale does the Navy Surgeon, the Army Cook, and the Marine truck Mechanic fall? Only 10-15% of the military are in direct, pull-the-trigger type combat roles (take the current US Vice President; a former marine, who for most of his service, shot with a 35mm SLR (not the 7.62 variety), mostly at birthday cakes, chow halls and trophies). Your view is typical of the ignorant civvie my late dad encountered when he left the Army, after 25 years in military Path Labs. The NHS managers who interviewed him for hospital roles seriously thought that as a Chief Tech in the military lab (he was a Captain), his method of man management involved sending people to the glass house, giving them a bolocking every day

Nothing wrong with being teetotal. So you're thinking about trying crack and heroin, to see if its for you? I've never tried either, but I know they're not for me.

If left, it will bring down the whole bally lot of you.

A golden cow comes to mind. This one might be bigger: https://www.axios.com/local/phoenix/2024/10/03/nude-trump-effigy-phoenix-las-vegas

Starmer will be gone by next week. Wes Streeting is tainted by Mandelson, meaning the former deputy Prime Minister, Claire Rayner, will be PM. There won't be a snap election, because Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Reform all at sea, not sure what to do. Careful what you wish for. The political fallout spread originally from over the otherside of the Atlantic. The police investigation is likely to reveal uncomfortable truths for US politicians, those GOP politicians who mysteriously welcomed Mandelson's appointment as Ambassador. You have the Epstein files, and now the Mandelson Papers, following the Tory Leader's "Humble Address". A "Humble Address" is a petition to the King, which if passed by the House, binds the ministers into the release and debate of documents. It was used to reveal the economic assessments the government had carried out in relation to Brexit. The Americans won't have control about what comes out. https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/102162/Html?subType=Standard Much of the sorry state of the world today is due to the events of 2008, and the acts of American financiers that caused it. Leading to craven, incompetant government throughout the West, including governments who's leaders personally profited from the bailouts, Russian aggression, Arab blue-on-blue atrocity and global destabilisation. 2008 may also have created the conditions for the COVID-19 pandemic, through the buying up of Chinese farms by Goldman Sachs and others, causing small holders to farm in more remote areas, increasing the likelyhood of contact with emerging infectious agents, which is still the most likely cause of the pandemic, compounding with poor Chinese BSL-2 containment (not, not BSL-4) and a Wuhan which was an integral part of the global supply chain. And all roads lead to a weasel of a man sitting in paranoid seclusion in Moscow, with an enormous chip on his shoulder about losing that KGB job in Germany.

Musk, the Grandson of an Apartheid supporting Technocrat locked up in WW2 for being maybe too pro-German. His Grandad took his family, including Musk's mother, to South Africa because they had introduced Apartheid laws, not in spite of those laws. As a Technocrat, he camapigned in Canada for the abolition of elections, and governments to be run by technocrats, as an alternative to democracy and communism. And we want the brethren of this loon to be controlling the airwaves and pushing porn? No surprise on the incels posting comments.