mormont

That seems odd, since both the other candidates ran as further to the left than Starmer. It's the job of a party leader to deal with the media. Corbyn was terrible at it, and surrounded himself with people who were equally bad at it (McDonnell, Milne). Their media strategy was to whine about the media. It was embarrassing, and it rapidly destroyed that initial wave of popularity. I agree with you about there being an appetite in the country for a more radical agenda. But it's not a shock that the Labour party are targeting Tory voters at this stage in the electoral cycle, and at least part of the blame for that can be put on Corbyn's disastrous failure to sell the more radical agenda he believed in.

Now, many of us dislike Trump. But we're all too mature, I'm sure, to point and laugh at his golf game. I might just watch that again to show how I'm too mature to laugh. Anyway, my question was, what do you think he put that down as on his score card?

Just the real world. I deal with incidents in a bar as part of my job. I've seen multiple cases where an asshole sexually harasses a girl and her boyfriend/friend/some passer-by punches the harasser in response. I've never seen one of the harassers express any remorse or reflection or intent to change their behaviour as a result of being punched. Just indignant anger. I too have a daughter and I have deliberately avoided one particular person in her life because I don't trust myself not to punch that person for how they've treated her. But I don't kid myself that if I did, it would have any effect beyond making me feel better. It would not change how that person acts to her. That's not how people work. What would happen is, that person would tell themselves a story about how I'm out of order for punching them, and then go right on as they were. And that's what the guy in your story did too: he now tells a story about how you were the asshole in that incident and he did nothing wrong. That's how people work. And to get back to topic, if Rhodes does get a beat-down in prison, it will to him just be further vindication for his twisted world view. It would feel good to us to read about it, mind you.

He almost certainly has. Deterrence is a poor influencer of behaviour even when meted out by the state. By a random person on the street? The chance that this incident affected that person's behaviour long term, however satisfying the idea is to you, is practically nil.

A chunk of the teachers' pay settlement, I understand, will come from increasing visa fees for overseas HE students, by up to £500 a year in many cases. Not a penny of that money will go to the universities they're paying to attend, of course. And universities aren't included in this pay settlement. Re: erosion of wages, I don't think I've had a pay settlement above inflation since, oh, 2008 or so? I've had promotions in that time so I'm earning more than I was then, but the point is, the government can't continue to distribute the benefits of growth to the rich and the pain of austerity and inflation to everyone else. I understand that the UK is, due to some bad decisions by the Treasury, more exposed to inflation in terms of the national debt than other countries. We also have huge funding gaps in many public services - health, education - and need to do a lot of infrastructure spending. We need major change, and someone with the courage to make it happen. And when I say that, I do not mean more privatisation and private sector provision of public services. That's a failed old idea that certain folks like to pretend is still radical and new. We've been doing it for decades and it's a big part of why we're in this mess.

Hey, remember that kid from last episode? You know, Fury held a gun to his head and then Talos murdered his dad and then his dad turned out to be an alien? (Was the kid an alien too?) How much therapy do you think that kid's going to need?

I liked that episode a lot better than the first three, perhaps surprisingly, as pretty much every revelation was exactly what people had predicted after episode 3. But it worked for me just the same. The early part of the episode is strong: Mendelsohn does wonderful work in that scene with G'iah, Cheadle and Jackson again elevate their scene (right down to the way Fury acts with 'Rhodey' - hamming it up and watching as the Skrull fails to react), and the scene with Fury and Priscilla actually had me thinking they might go there on a Disney+ show. As for the action scene:

Finished the first five episodes last night, and honestly I can't understand a number of the reactions here. It's pretty good, folks. There are flaws: I don't think episode 5 worked in the end, but I appreciate that they tried it. Nothing wrong with taking a swing. And it meant we got multiple chances to appreciate the pretty costumes and sets from different angles if nothing else. I think there is a tendency on this board to over-value clear backstory and setting and under-value aesthetics and atmosphere in TV series. Mileage can vary but TV is a visual medium, after all. Fight scenes are a good example. Folks, no fight scene you've ever watched is 'realistic'. They're choreographed all the way. There's no real difference between Ciri fighting on the boat and Geralt dancing at Aretuza. (Geralt doesn't even know the dance but does it perfectly!) These are storytelling tools. The 'power pose' is part of the story being told in the maze scene: Ciri is confident despite the peril. We can't get inside her head as we can in a book, so it's necessary to tell us that through the fight choreography. Just go with it and have fun. And these five episodes were fun. Forget the details of the travel and coincidental meetings. I love the dynamic of Geralt, Ciri and Yennefe. (Even if I still wish they'd picked a slightly older actor for Yen, Anya Chalotra is doing fine.) I enjoy seeing these characters on screen. The fights are fun, the adaptation is competent (it's not by any means an easy story to adapt), the actors seem to be enjoying themselves. I think this series still has steam, and in fact these five episodes are an improvement on the second season. Looking forward to the rest.

Speaking as a parent... it's absolutely credible, even likely, that the mother genuinely feels her daughter was exploited and the daughter genuinely feels she was not. If so, it's terrible that this disagreement is now being played out in front of millions.

You literally quoted and responded to a post saying she was.

I'd hope a serving police officer would know better than to cast doubt on the credibilty of a witness who is as yet unidentified, on the grounds that she is allegedly a drug user. There is no reason drug users can't be credible witnesses.

No worries. Much worse for you, this sort of thing happening in your community. As for the BBC story, an earlier report alluded to this, suggesting that there had been no follow up after an initial report. I wondered then if the issue was that the girl was not willing to make a complaint and that the family are the ones pushing this. That's a tricky situation for any organisation. No complainant, the police unable or unwilling to make out a criminal offence. It's a legal minefield as an employer. I'm not happy about the description of a 17 year old as a 'child', notwithstanding ,my earlier remarks about power imbalance, which still stand. If I had to guess I'd say some inappropriate but not illegal contact has been going on. Ironically all the media coverage helps the BBC here, as it creates a genuine reason to dismiss, because of the damage to the organisation.

I mean, not going to lie, when you've spent the weekend in Tewkesbury waving swords and knives around for the edification of the public and then someone stabs a person the next morning, that does give me a shiver.

1. Nobody here is against a ceasefire. 2. If you're against throwing untrained conscripts into a fight, I have news about the Russian army. 3. You can't have 'defence lines' in a country you invaded. Those are invasion lines.

So any thoughts on this revelation? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66154909

The problem in this discussion is the opposite: blarney about the West's failings deployed as a smokescreen over invasion, war crimes, and the clear full culpability of Russia for this war.

I still have enough energy to go full tin.

I hope not, I was there at the weekend.

I think you're missing the point, though. The point is,

Western countries and Russia have both been playing the influence game in Ukraine for a long time. Countries have a legitimate interest in what happens in other countries and they'll try to affect that with money, diplomacy, and offers of help. Russia, as is well documented, added corruption and blackmail to that pot. Some would have it that the West did the same. But I'm absolutely sure of this: only one side marched an army up to the Ukraine border, promised that they would not invade, and then marched over the border and started shooting people, looting, and attempting to annex territory. Twice in a decade. And if your country's survival depends on doing those things to another sovereign country, then your country's survival can go to hell in a handbasket for all I care. The evidence is that Russia's armed forces would not last five days if they had to 'fight back'. There are two things saving Russia from having to 'fight back': 1. Nuclear weapons 2. A complete lack of interest from the West in actually invading Russia.

Regardless of the relevant laws, an older, publicly known person with the sort of income where you have 35 grand spare for anything soliciting images of this type from a teenager is exploitative and gross. There's an element of the scale of the furore that's political: the Tories love this stuff because it distracts from the sleaze in their own party. But it's right that this should be condemned and the BBC should consider the issue seriously.

But St Petersburg is Putin's home turf. It's where he allegedly fled to during the Wagner advance. It's a place he used to run and where he should still have his most loyal allies. For Prigozhin to go there voluntarily would suggest a level of trust in Putin that seems fantastical under the circumstances, or that St Petersburg is no longer safe for Putin, which is also hard to credit.

I may have heard dumber things than someone pissing off Vladimir Putin and then nipping off to St Petersburg to collect personal belongings. But I can't think of them right now. If Prigozhin is in St Petersburg, I have to imagine it's in an unlit room with good soundproofing.

Right now, the person most likely to replace Starmer is Wes Streeting. If that doesn't make you have warmer feelings towards Starmer, nothing will.

It's not that the Tories oppose the right to strike, or indeed protest. It's just that they would prefer if all such activity was done in your lunch hour, quietly, in a curtained alcove, for about five minutes, on your own.