mormont

Any chance we could get the conversation back to contemporary UK politics?

His retired campaign manager had instant access to £5K - £6.5K, in fact. So I'm not buying that as an excuse. And in the grand scheme of things, £90K a year really is that much. It puts you in the top 5% of earners.

So I'll forgo my rant about how shitty our generation is, and how we've no right to criticise younger folks when we are so awful, in favour of highlighting this story, which the headline ('Tory MP suspended over alleged misuse of funds') really does not do justice: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68841840 I suspect this is one of those times when we won't ever find out the whole story, but clearly, there's a little more to this than 'Tory MP misuses funds'. I appreciate that MPs live an expensive life, but this dude gets £90K a year in basic salary and he did not have £5K in the bank even for a matter of life and death? Who were these bad people? How did this situation arise? This is extremely concerning. There's also another £14,000 of medical bills covered by party money and not repaid.

I'm a little confused about kids today, who are simultaneously anarchic visigoths roaming the land secure in their invulnerability to adult disapproval but also oversensitive woke snowflakes who never leave their bedrooms, but one thing's for sure - they aren't to be trusted to make their own decisions.

Since this is the first I’ve heard of them, and I work in an organisation that has a nightclub, I’m thinking they were not that big of a minority.

While this evening’s tally shows quite a few Tories have an issue with the measure on that latter principle, or at least think there are votes in that stance n, mostly they’re content with the usual ‘liberty for me, not for thee’ position. As for supply, since your ‘dealer’ only needs to be someone born before 2008, there seems no space for organised criminal involvement. https://x.com/number10cat/status/1780228873247948916?s=61&t=VAHy5UztwfQqm4Pp6VIw0w

Truss has always been a grifter, she's just trying desperately now to horn in on the Trump gravy train.

One of the ironies of the Cass review is that a major theme is the 'toxicity' of the debate. And yet it has immediately been seized on by the most toxic side of that debate, with the aim of ramping up the toxicity even further. Little has been said about the review's findings that support for young gender questioning kids is hopelessly underfunded, for example, and that the waiting lists are far too long, and that more - not fewer - gender identity specialist clinics are needed. As is so often the case, people are much more concerned with what those in need of care shouldn't get than what they should. The review of the effectiveness of puberty blockers is open to criticism, but in any case these are so rarely prescribed that to treat it as the most important issue the review was concerned with shows a deeply skewed set of priorities. The conclusions on social transitioning are... odd. People have been socially transitioning for as long as there have been people. To say we don't know enough about the long term harms and benefits of this strikes me as mistaking timidity for caution. But the saddest part is that whatever Cass' protestations, the review will be - is being - wielded as a club by those who want to deny that trans identities are valid. It was set up for political reasons and will be used for political reasons. Trans and gender questioning kids should benefit from a review that calls for more support, a holistic approach and better quality evidence. Does anyone here think they actually will?

[mod] Folks, please, no tipping talk. Tipping has seriously caused more bad blood and flaming than virtually any other topic on this board over the years. It's, pardon the pun, off the table as a topic. Thank you. [/mod]

OK anyone except Ran. :p (You got 3/5.) But the point remains, Hugo voters have always had their favourites.

I also miss room parties, but I know Scottish alcohol laws very well and do not anticipate that there will be any as a result.

I mean, 'twas ever thus. If you go back to the '70s, you can see Bob Silverberg get nominated three times in two years ('72 and '73) then again in '76 and '77: and if anyone here can name any of those novels without looking it up, I'll give them a lollipop. Translation State is the only one of those named above I've read, and it's Hugo-worthy IMO even if it's not Leckie's very best work. Even not-her-best is very good.

There's been a report chaired by an eminent (female) lawyer, a draft bill and a consultation process. https://www.gov.scot/news/misogyny-law-consultation/ The misogyny bill is well along the line. Not sure I agree this needed to be separate, but it'll happen for sure by 2025, and probably sooner.

Have you been to Broughty Ferry? That photo is not a typical representation.