Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Biffer]

After everything else, Sunak seems to have killed the fucking cat as well.

[salanya]

After everything else, Sunak seems to have killed the fucking cat as well.

What??! He killed Larry?

If that doesn't start a revolution and a defenestration then there is no justice in this world.

[sturginho]

It's ok guys, Trump says that Sunaks climate U-turn is smart, I dunno about you but I am reassured

[tabascoboy]

[Hal Jordan]

"I will give the Police free reign to shoot people" is entirely on brand for our Home Secretary.

[fishfoodie]

"I will give the Police free reign to shoot people" is entirely on brand for our Home Secretary.

Well it's the logical progression from trying to give Soldiers immunity from prosecution for murder.

[Blackmac]

"I will give the Police free reign to shoot people" is entirely on brand for our Home Secretary.

That's not really what she said though was it and he knows it.
I personally can't understand the mentality of any cops that volunteers to carry a firearm, especially in somewhere like London where you are likely to use have to use them and place your liberty in the hands of a split second decision in a highly charged situation. A lot of these firearms interactions also seem to start with some very dodgy intelligence that immediately puts them on the back foot. They get no extra pay and no backing when it goes wrong.
Firearms officers in places like Scotland are basically considered useless, workshy lads who prefer swanning about in an ARV with little of no danger to doing everyday police work.

[C69]

Fuck the North...

[dpedin]

"I will give the Police free reign to shoot people" is entirely on brand for our Home Secretary.

That's not really what she said though was it and he knows it.
I personally can't understand the mentality of any cops that volunteers to carry a firearm, especially in somewhere like London where you are likely to use have to use them and place your liberty in the hands of a split second decision in a highly charged situation. A lot of these firearms interactions also seem to start with some very dodgy intelligence that immediately puts them on the back foot. They get no extra pay and no backing when it goes wrong.
Firearms officers in places like Scotland are basically considered useless, workshy lads who prefer swanning about in an ARV with little of no danger to doing everyday police work.

Giving any group of people 'special dispensation' from the law of the land is an extremely slippery slope to go down. I have a lot of admiration and indeed sympathy for the armed police but they cant be held to a different legal standard to everyone else in the land. The guy has been charged and will have to go through the legal process as it stands, suggesting only police don't have to go through this process, or will have a different police only process, is very, very dangerous. We cannot have any group of people who are above the law. Unlike many of our current Government I do have faith in our legal processes and hopefully it will come to the correct result.

[Biffer]

"I will give the Police free reign to shoot people" is entirely on brand for our Home Secretary.

That's not really what she said though was it and he knows it.
I personally can't understand the mentality of any cops that volunteers to carry a firearm, especially in somewhere like London where you are likely to use have to use them and place your liberty in the hands of a split second decision in a highly charged situation. A lot of these firearms interactions also seem to start with some very dodgy intelligence that immediately puts them on the back foot. They get no extra pay and no backing when it goes wrong.
Firearms officers in places like Scotland are basically considered useless, workshy lads who prefer swanning about in an ARV with little of no danger to doing everyday police work.

Giving any group of people 'special dispensation' from the law of the land is an extremely slippery slope to go down. I have a lot of admiration and indeed sympathy for the armed police but they cant be held to a different legal standard to everyone else in the land. The guy has been charged and will have to go through the legal process as it stands, suggesting only police don't have to go through this process, or will have a different police only process, is very, very dangerous. We cannot have any group of people who are above the law. Unlike many of our current Government I do have faith in our legal processes and hopefully it will come to the correct result.

Yeah. The police are a civil force not a military one, and it should stay that way.

[shaggy]

That's not really what she said though was it and he knows it.
I personally can't understand the mentality of any cops that volunteers to carry a firearm, especially in somewhere like London where you are likely to use have to use them and place your liberty in the hands of a split second decision in a highly charged situation. A lot of these firearms interactions also seem to start with some very dodgy intelligence that immediately puts them on the back foot. They get no extra pay and no backing when it goes wrong.
Firearms officers in places like Scotland are basically considered useless, workshy lads who prefer swanning about in an ARV with little of no danger to doing everyday police work.

Giving any group of people 'special dispensation' from the law of the land is an extremely slippery slope to go down. I have a lot of admiration and indeed sympathy for the armed police but they cant be held to a different legal standard to everyone else in the land. The guy has been charged and will have to go through the legal process as it stands, suggesting only police don't have to go through this process, or will have a different police only process, is very, very dangerous. We cannot have any group of people who are above the law. Unlike many of our current Government I do have faith in our legal processes and hopefully it will come to the correct result.

Yeah. The police are a civil force not a military one, and it should stay that way.

There is a very significant difference between police and civilian. Armed police are following orders and are trained in the application of that process, civilians are not.

I think that difference means there is value in looking at whether a different process should be followed for potential prosecution.

[inactionman]

Interestingly, it appears that the ZEV Mandate, which will require car makers to have electrified models make up at least 22 per cent of their overall sales from 2024 is still coming into force.

Now, "electrified" is a weasel word, but if you miss the target you get clipped at £15k per vehicle. Given that anecdotally the 5 year rollback is making people think about whether to leave getting an EV (and the deadline also being either ill-researched or wilfully misrepresented in certain quarters as "a total ban in ICE"), a cynic might think some mandarin has hit upon a way to screw an income source out of car companies whose EV demand is suppressed by the announcement.

Much as I applaud any initiative to get us off fossil fuels, is that completely in the gift of the manufacture? It's the buyer's choice.

THe manufacturer may incentivise the purchase of EVs of whatever ilk, but they can't make people choose those options.

[inactionman]

"I will give the Police free reign to shoot people" is entirely on brand for our Home Secretary.

That's not really what she said though was it and he knows it.
I personally can't understand the mentality of any cops that volunteers to carry a firearm, especially in somewhere like London where you are likely to use have to use them and place your liberty in the hands of a split second decision in a highly charged situation. A lot of these firearms interactions also seem to start with some very dodgy intelligence that immediately puts them on the back foot. They get no extra pay and no backing when it goes wrong.
Firearms officers in places like Scotland are basically considered useless, workshy lads who prefer swanning about in an ARV with little of no danger to doing everyday police work.

Giving any group of people 'special dispensation' from the law of the land is an extremely slippery slope to go down. I have a lot of admiration and indeed sympathy for the armed police but they cant be held to a different legal standard to everyone else in the land. The guy has been charged and will have to go through the legal process as it stands, suggesting only police don't have to go through this process, or will have a different police only process, is very, very dangerous. We cannot have any group of people who are above the law. Unlike many of our current Government I do have faith in our legal processes and hopefully it will come to the correct result.

It is, but you've already given someone legal right* to kill someone in certain circumstances, which is itself a special dispensation. It would make sense to me that you examine those circumstances and the legality of their actions differently.

Not so differently as to allow murder, of course, but it's really not the same situation as joe public picking up a gun and shooting someone.

* I assume it's not a responsibility - they can't prosecute an armed policeman for not shooting someone who then goes on to harm someone else, can they?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Is there a summary somewhere as to what happened with the lad being killed, arguably murdered in the car? Or put another way, does it make sense the police are getting upset about this incident and the charges being brought, or are there wider concerns about the Monday morning quarterbacking of post incident procedures getting conflated into an already upsetting situation?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Fuck the North...

Pfft. Wait for the Charlie Line to connect Old Oak Common into central London to handle the volumes (if the line proves unbelievably unpopular they may call it the Meghan Line, but maybe even the Tories have the wit not to ask the Northern Line to give up its current colour)

[petej]

Interestingly, it appears that the ZEV Mandate, which will require car makers to have electrified models make up at least 22 per cent of their overall sales from 2024 is still coming into force.

Now, "electrified" is a weasel word, but if you miss the target you get clipped at £15k per vehicle. Given that anecdotally the 5 year rollback is making people think about whether to leave getting an EV (and the deadline also being either ill-researched or wilfully misrepresented in certain quarters as "a total ban in ICE"), a cynic might think some mandarin has hit upon a way to screw an income source out of car companies whose EV demand is suppressed by the announcement.

Much as I applaud any initiative to get us off fossil fuels, is that completely in the gift of the manufacture? It's the buyer's choice.

THe manufacturer may incentivise the purchase of EVs of whatever ilk, but they can't make people choose those options.

Once electric cars are cheaper which will likely be in a year or so this will just happen.

[Biffer]

Giving any group of people 'special dispensation' from the law of the land is an extremely slippery slope to go down. I have a lot of admiration and indeed sympathy for the armed police but they cant be held to a different legal standard to everyone else in the land. The guy has been charged and will have to go through the legal process as it stands, suggesting only police don't have to go through this process, or will have a different police only process, is very, very dangerous. We cannot have any group of people who are above the law. Unlike many of our current Government I do have faith in our legal processes and hopefully it will come to the correct result.

Yeah. The police are a civil force not a military one, and it should stay that way.

There is a very significant difference between police and civilian. Armed police are following orders and are trained in the application of that process, civilians are not.

I think that difference means there is value in looking at whether a different process should be followed for potential prosecution.

Yeah, I'm not saying they're civilians, I'm saying they're a civil force not a military one. If there are clear rules of engagement for firearms officers and they are followed, then that should determine whether a prosecution follows. They can't just be exempted from accountability though.

The problem highlighted by police unions about 'years of legal proceedings' is more an indication that the justice system is fucked and it's taking years to get even simple crimes through the courts because of massive underresourcing.

[Hal Jordan]

Interestingly, it appears that the ZEV Mandate, which will require car makers to have electrified models make up at least 22 per cent of their overall sales from 2024 is still coming into force.

Now, "electrified" is a weasel word, but if you miss the target you get clipped at £15k per vehicle. Given that anecdotally the 5 year rollback is making people think about whether to leave getting an EV (and the deadline also being either ill-researched or wilfully misrepresented in certain quarters as "a total ban in ICE"), a cynic might think some mandarin has hit upon a way to screw an income source out of car companies whose EV demand is suppressed by the announcement.

Much as I applaud any initiative to get us off fossil fuels, is that completely in the gift of the manufacture? It's the buyer's choice.

THe manufacturer may incentivise the purchase of EVs of whatever ilk, but they can't make people choose those options.

I think the purpose is to stop OEMs sitting on their hands and slow walking the delivery of EVS. Most of them are packing in the ICE R&D anyway.

[inactionman]

Interestingly, it appears that the ZEV Mandate, which will require car makers to have electrified models make up at least 22 per cent of their overall sales from 2024 is still coming into force.

Now, "electrified" is a weasel word, but if you miss the target you get clipped at £15k per vehicle. Given that anecdotally the 5 year rollback is making people think about whether to leave getting an EV (and the deadline also being either ill-researched or wilfully misrepresented in certain quarters as "a total ban in ICE"), a cynic might think some mandarin has hit upon a way to screw an income source out of car companies whose EV demand is suppressed by the announcement.

Much as I applaud any initiative to get us off fossil fuels, is that completely in the gift of the manufacture? It's the buyer's choice.

THe manufacturer may incentivise the purchase of EVs of whatever ilk, but they can't make people choose those options.

I think the purpose is to stop OEMs sitting on their hands and slow walking the delivery of EVS. Most of them are packing in the ICE R&D anyway.

It seems odd that our wonderfully free market advocating leaders don't realise that incentivising customers to buy EVs would necessarily incentivise manufacturers to provide them.

<removes tongue from cheek>

To be honest, anything to phase out hydrocarbon vehicles should really be applauded. This just seems a bit misplaced, as I understand it.

[dpedin]

Yeah. The police are a civil force not a military one, and it should stay that way.

There is a very significant difference between police and civilian. Armed police are following orders and are trained in the application of that process, civilians are not.

I think that difference means there is value in looking at whether a different process should be followed for potential prosecution.

Yeah, I'm not saying they're civilians, I'm saying they're a civil force not a military one. If there are clear rules of engagement for firearms officers and they are followed, then that should determine whether a prosecution follows. They can't just be exempted from accountability though.

The problem highlighted by police unions about 'years of legal proceedings' is more an indication that the justice system is fucked and it's taking years to get even simple crimes through the courts because of massive underresourcing.

Agreed - civil or military officers can be prosecuted if found they have operated outwith the agreed parameters/rules of engagement. They cannot be dealt with as if a different law applies to them.

However I do agree that it would be better if the whole process could be sped up as they amount of time it takes for CPS to determine to proceed with criminal prosecution and then getting to court etc is ridiculous. I believe there is an argument for speeding this process up for these types of cases albeit this has problems with leapfrogging equally important cases. It would be less of a problem if we didn't have an underfunded criminal justice system with huge backlogs of cases.

[dpedin]

Much as I applaud any initiative to get us off fossil fuels, is that completely in the gift of the manufacture? It's the buyer's choice.

THe manufacturer may incentivise the purchase of EVs of whatever ilk, but they can't make people choose those options.

I think the purpose is to stop OEMs sitting on their hands and slow walking the delivery of EVS. Most of them are packing in the ICE R&D anyway.

It seems odd that our wonderfully free market advocating leaders don't realise that incentivising customers to buy EVs would necessarily incentivise manufacturers to provide them.

<removes tongue from cheek>

To be honest, anything to phase out hydrocarbon vehicles should really be applauded. This just seems a bit misplaced, as I understand it.

The planning and lead in times that car manufacturers work to means that they cant really deviate from their existing plans based around the 2030 timeframe. Easiest way to avoid incurring the £15k surcharge is to just not make petrol or diesel powered cars! Most will only have EVs available for sale from 2030 - Nissan have already confirmed this is the case. Their plans will see a steady run down of petrol and diesel stocks from now onwards - who want to be left sitting on stocks of RH drive cars they cant sell for a profit? Sunak's decision is really just a political play ignoring the reality!!

A bigger problem for the car manufacturers and dealers in the UK is the stalemate over rules of origin, it looks like the EU aren't all that keen to deviate from the Brexit deal and as a result EV cars will incur a 10% tariff when transported over the channel in both directions - see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66889029. Of course many will be waiting for a last minute deal to extend the deadline -there is considerable pressure from companies on both sides of the channel - but car manufacturers won't like the uncertainty and will have contingency plans ready. This must be another Brexit bonus? Taking back control? Some might suggest this is the issue driving Sunak's walk back from the 2030 deadline?

[Paddington Bear]

Is there a summary somewhere as to what happened with the lad being killed, arguably murdered in the car? Or put another way, does it make sense the police are getting upset about this incident and the charges being brought, or are there wider concerns about the Monday morning quarterbacking of post incident procedures getting conflated into an already upsetting situation?

I think even his family accepted after seeing the footage that he was not murdered

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Is there a summary somewhere as to what happened with the lad being killed, arguably murdered in the car? Or put another way, does it make sense the police are getting upset about this incident and the charges being brought, or are there wider concerns about the Monday morning quarterbacking of post incident procedures getting conflated into an already upsetting situation?

I think even his family accepted after seeing the footage that he was not murdered

And yet the CPS bring a murder charge? unusual for the family of the person deaded to lowball the CPS.

Still the question would stand, which is essentially was there any need for a firearm to be involved, once drawn was there any need for a firearm to be discharged?

[Blackmac]

"I will give the Police free reign to shoot people" is entirely on brand for our Home Secretary.

That's not really what she said though was it and he knows it.
I personally can't understand the mentality of any cops that volunteers to carry a firearm, especially in somewhere like London where you are likely to use have to use them and place your liberty in the hands of a split second decision in a highly charged situation. A lot of these firearms interactions also seem to start with some very dodgy intelligence that immediately puts them on the back foot. They get no extra pay and no backing when it goes wrong.
Firearms officers in places like Scotland are basically considered useless, workshy lads who prefer swanning about in an ARV with little of no danger to doing everyday police work.

Giving any group of people 'special dispensation' from the law of the land is an extremely slippery slope to go down. I have a lot of admiration and indeed sympathy for the armed police but they cant be held to a different legal standard to everyone else in the land. The guy has been charged and will have to go through the legal process as it stands, suggesting only police don't have to go through this process, or will have a different police only process, is very, very dangerous. We cannot have any group of people who are above the law. Unlike many of our current Government I do have faith in our legal processes and hopefully it will come to the correct result.

I totally agree with you and I actually don't understand why these Met lads think there should as that has never been the case.

[Blackmac]

That's not really what she said though was it and he knows it.
I personally can't understand the mentality of any cops that volunteers to carry a firearm, especially in somewhere like London where you are likely to use have to use them and place your liberty in the hands of a split second decision in a highly charged situation. A lot of these firearms interactions also seem to start with some very dodgy intelligence that immediately puts them on the back foot. They get no extra pay and no backing when it goes wrong.
Firearms officers in places like Scotland are basically considered useless, workshy lads who prefer swanning about in an ARV with little of no danger to doing everyday police work.

Giving any group of people 'special dispensation' from the law of the land is an extremely slippery slope to go down. I have a lot of admiration and indeed sympathy for the armed police but they cant be held to a different legal standard to everyone else in the land. The guy has been charged and will have to go through the legal process as it stands, suggesting only police don't have to go through this process, or will have a different police only process, is very, very dangerous. We cannot have any group of people who are above the law. Unlike many of our current Government I do have faith in our legal processes and hopefully it will come to the correct result.

It is, but you've already given someone legal right* to kill someone in certain circumstances, which is itself a special dispensation. It would make sense to me that you examine those circumstances and the legality of their actions differently.

Not so differently as to allow murder, of course, but it's really not the same situation as joe public picking up a gun and shooting someone.

* I assume it's not a responsibility - they can't prosecute an armed policeman for not shooting someone who then goes on to harm someone else, can they?

Police officers already have many powers which could be considered "special dispensation" in relation to a number of laws, the ability to openly carry firearms and where necessary use them, being one of the biggest. A death by police shooting would generally be considered a justifiable homicide, however it is only right that there is extensive scrutiny to ensure those powers are not abused or misused. I presume there is something significant about this case that has caused the CPS to have instigated a murder charge.

[fishfoodie]

Giving any group of people 'special dispensation' from the law of the land is an extremely slippery slope to go down. I have a lot of admiration and indeed sympathy for the armed police but they cant be held to a different legal standard to everyone else in the land. The guy has been charged and will have to go through the legal process as it stands, suggesting only police don't have to go through this process, or will have a different police only process, is very, very dangerous. We cannot have any group of people who are above the law. Unlike many of our current Government I do have faith in our legal processes and hopefully it will come to the correct result.

It is, but you've already given someone legal right* to kill someone in certain circumstances, which is itself a special dispensation. It would make sense to me that you examine those circumstances and the legality of their actions differently.

Not so differently as to allow murder, of course, but it's really not the same situation as joe public picking up a gun and shooting someone.

* I assume it's not a responsibility - they can't prosecute an armed policeman for not shooting someone who then goes on to harm someone else, can they?

Police officers already have many powers which could be considered "special dispensation" in relation to a number of laws, the ability to openly carry firearms and where necessary use them, being one of the biggest. A death by police shooting would generally be considered a justifiable homicide, however it is only right that there is extensive scrutiny to ensure those powers are not abused or misused. I presume there is something significant about this case that has caused the CPS to have instigated a murder charge.

I assume that whenever a Police Officer discharges their weapon in the UK, that triggers a process to ensure that procedures were followed, regardless of the outcome of a shot being fired ?

.... and that such a process would be where any decision to escalate from an administrative, to a full on criminal investigation would happen (politics permitting).

[Sandstorm]

Assuming the CPS in the current climate of poor government and rapid civil service decline are actually competent.

[David in Gwent]

The CPS are pandering to what they think the socially correct answer should be rather than concentrating on the facts, you people, here, are largely to blame for this type of "thinking"

[Simian]

The CPS are pandering to what they think the socially correct answer should be rather than concentrating on the facts, you people, here, are largely to blame for this type of "thinking"

lol. Fuck off

[dpedin]

The CPS are pandering to what they think the socially correct answer should be rather than concentrating on the facts, you people, here, are largely to blame for this type of "thinking"

lol. Fuck off

Ha ha ha - I don't think DinG is aware of the dripping irony in his post! Love it for the comedic value!

[fishfoodie]

Sounds about right.

TORY CONTEST KICKS OFF: Home Secretary Suella Braverman will fire the starting gun on the next Conservative leadership contest with a barnstorming speech Stateside calling on world leaders to rip up the 70-year-old U.N. Refugee Convention and introduce a migration regime “fit for our modern age.” It’s the stuff of grassroot Tory fantasies, a bold declaration that: “Seeking asylum and seeking better economic prospects are not the same thing.” She’s even brought a TV crew along for the ride.

https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/lond ... rting-gun/

Some cynics might have suggested that the Tories would struggle to find a thicker, less suitable candidate than the lettuce, but actually they apparently have cornered the market on ambitious cretins.

[tabascoboy]

There's nothing wrong per se with looking into sensible reform but "ripping up" is just dog whistle / red meat for popular appeal to the masses, and essentially means "we want no obligations, period"

[fishfoodie]

There's nothing wrong per se with looking into sensible reform but "ripping up" is just dog whistle / red meat for popular appeal to the masses, and essentially means "we want no obligations, period"

I'll bet she didn't suggest that the UK gives up its seat on the security council, in her ambition to reform things that aren't; “fit for our modern age.” ?

[Sandstorm]

There's nothing wrong per se with looking into sensible reform but "ripping up" is just dog whistle / red meat for popular appeal to the masses, and essentially means "we want no obligations, period"

Nope. Braverman will want refugees on boats reclassified as Pirates of the High Seas, so that Royal Navy frigates can just run them down. USA is probably the right place to make this declaration too.

[Paddington Bear]

There's nothing wrong per se with looking into sensible reform but "ripping up" is just dog whistle / red meat for popular appeal to the masses, and essentially means "we want no obligations, period"

Yes, there’s a serious point in there somewhere that increasingly our definition of refugee is ‘someone from a materially poorer country’, which obviously accounts for billions of people. The chances she’s actually engaging with that rather than a Daily Mail headline are pretty slim.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

There's nothing wrong per se with looking into sensible reform but "ripping up" is just dog whistle / red meat for popular appeal to the masses, and essentially means "we want no obligations, period"

It's been longstanding as the part of the problem which needs addressing.

But this government as we see with Brexit wants to run away from diplomacy because it's hard, and there will be a lot of competing demands around any change to the current norms. And, it's not obvious that what would result from a curtailment or near curtailment of peoples' ability to move in the face of economic hardship, oppression, climate change would actually be desirous from our standpoint, we could easily just create a much worse situation.

Still, given it's where I'd look to make changes it'd be unfair to slate the announcement just because of who made it. We shall it good faith attempts are made to progress the issue, at a minimum I'd expect any serious change to take years and that's of limited use with an election next spring

[dpedin]

Just listened to Cruella's speech to the right wing sickos in the US and it was just awful. Full of right wing bullshit and conflation of issues, claims without any evidence, racist and inflammatory language, etc. Obviously positioning herself for leadership of the NatC Party once the Troy party collapses post General Election. So much bullshit, it was basically the Great Replacement Theory rehashed and reworded. Her speech was basically trashed by the BBC reporter on R5 within 2 minutes. As Hugo Rifkind points out.

'Remarkable to hear Braverman say multiculturalism has failed. She's a British Home Secretary descended from Goan Indians from Mauritius and Kenya, married to a Jewish husband, in a government headed by Britain's first Hindu PM. What would successful multiculturalism look like?'

Cruella obviously decided to go it alone and strike out for the right wing backing for leadership and no doubt expects the sack soon. She has to go, she is just a vile woman.

[Simian]

Just listened to Cruella's speech to the right wing sickos in the US and it was just awful. Full of right wing bullshit and conflation of issues, claims without any evidence, racist and inflammatory language, etc. Obviously positioning herself for leadership of the NatC Party once the Troy party collapses post General Election. So much bullshit, it was basically the Great Replacement Theory rehashed and reworded. Her speech was basically trashed by the BBC reporter on R5 within 2 minutes. As Hugo Rifkind points out.

'Remarkable to hear Braverman say multiculturalism has failed. She's a British Home Secretary descended from Goan Indians from Mauritius and Kenya, married to a Jewish husband, in a government headed by Britain's first Hindu PM. What would successful multiculturalism look like?'

Cruella obviously decided to go it alone and strike out for the right wing backing for leadership and no doubt expects the sack soon. She has to go, she is just a vile woman.

Some of the language she used in particular was just incredible. Hugely embarrassing to have a senior UK politician speaking like that.

[inactionman]

It's been a few days since some of our more prickly Caledonian colleagues have had a rant, so here's some fuel for the fire.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/ ... the-menace

It was, according to Scotland’s foremost comic book creator, “madness”.

Mark Millar, the writer of Kick-Ass, Jupiter’s Legacy and Ultimate X-Men, was reacting to a new billboard advertisement from the UK government, which could be seen as suggesting the timeless mischief-maker Dennis the Menace was created in London.

“Dennis the Menace was created in 1951 by Edinburgh cartoonist for the Beano, published every week by Dundee’s DC Thomson,” Millar wrote on Tuesday morning on X, formerly Twitter. “He’s as Scottish as Sir Sean.”

Of course, they meant the world-famous animated TV show, filmed in London, and not the barely known comic book written and printed in Dundee. Of course they did.

More happily, I've discovered through that article that there is a Professor of Comic Studies at Dundee.

Silly SNP sod accuses the tories of cultural appropriation, so everyone looks a bit daft and parochial.

[SaintK]

Just listened to Cruella's speech to the right wing sickos in the US and it was just awful. Full of right wing bullshit and conflation of issues, claims without any evidence, racist and inflammatory language, etc. Obviously positioning herself for leadership of the NatC Party once the Troy party collapses post General Election. So much bullshit, it was basically the Great Replacement Theory rehashed and reworded. Her speech was basically trashed by the BBC reporter on R5 within 2 minutes. As Hugo Rifkind points out.

'Remarkable to hear Braverman say multiculturalism has failed. She's a British Home Secretary descended from Goan Indians from Mauritius and Kenya, married to a Jewish husband, in a government headed by Britain's first Hindu PM. What would successful multiculturalism look like?'

Cruella obviously decided to go it alone and strike out for the right wing backing for leadership and no doubt expects the sack soon. She has to go, she is just a vile woman.

Some of the language she used in particular was just incredible. Hugely embarrassing to have a senior UK politician speaking like that.

Embarrassing doesn't begin to describe it. Still, I'm sure the Daily Heil will lap it it up.