You've Been Trumped - Wikipedia

You should probably also watch these for some examples of very real consequences visited on objecters to planning applications. I'm aware of others.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27v...

"legions" do not exist, except in your prejudiced imagination.

What does exist - and which you support - is a chilling barrier to raising objections.

Can a tenant, for instance, expect to object without blowback from a landlord?

It's not really the public eye, though, is it? It's the developer/sponsor who has an economic stake in the development.

And it's not laughter, is it? That's not what we're talking about.

That's not a consequence. A consequence is something that happens after the fact.

I think you mean that people who object - complainers, in your vocabulary - should be subject to after-the-fact consequences for their complaint. That's the plain meaning of your words.

Again, I ask you to explain what "complaints without consequences" means.

Should not we be able to object without consequences?

What "consequences" are you envisaging?

Sure: and here you are clearly stating which side you stand for - the developer. And your previous posts, which side you disdain - the objecter.

Really: unbundle what you mean by "complaints without consequences", because that in itself sounds like a threat.

Well designed processes are designed around edge cases, especially where those edge cases expose participants to risk of serious harm. There is no good reason why the applicant nor the general public should be given personal details; councis can safely evauate the weight of each comment.

Just say that you don't give a shit about DV/stalking/threats/intimidation because you don't think it'll apply to you.

One obvious requirement is the recognition that Crimea and Donbas are sovereign Ukraine territory, not - as Trump seems to signal - something that should be given up.

In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law.

Again, this speaks to the question the Iranian's are asking: why on earth would you trust an obvious weasel?

* www.senate.gov/about/powers...

It is a treaty, as registered in the United Nations Treaty Series Volume 3007, I-52241. That's fairly definitional in international law terms.

Whether or not you understand that, you do presumably understand that the US is not honoring it?

Things the US is not doing: 1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders 3. Refrain from economic coercion 4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory.

Why wold Iran sign an agreement with an obviously faithless party?

Thanks for watermarking it. Helpful.

Would love to hear an MP ask Wes Streeting in Parliament about the continued suitability of Palantir in light of their manifesto. Sadly Westminster somewhat semi-detached from it all.

Strong dovecote game.

That's a very pathetic of ad hominem merely underscoring the paucity of your argument.

Either you know what the memorandum was, and how the USA has failed, or you do not. Arguing that its being mistaken for NATO membership is - to use your word - dumb.

Iran was not a signatory of the Budapest Memorandum.

The USA claims to be offering Iran guarantees in return for giving up on nuclear capabilities - *exactly* what Ukraine was asked to do. Asking how that worked out for Ukraine seems on point.

Well no. We know what the Budapest Memorandum was, and in which way Ukraine was failed by the USA. We know it demonstrates that the USA's word is wholly worthless.

Spurs / West Ham will be interesting to watch for the next few games. #Tenterhooks.

Strong ahistorical and ageographic take there. It's geographic nomenclature, not political, for the complete archipelago.

Anyway: good try.

It took you 20 minutes to come up with that?

Look, fucker. You posted an obviously false assertion and I called you on it. Maybe just try to have some dignity rather than attempting to troll me?

You'd like them smaller than 1 pixel? Good luck with that. Once again you're merely showing your arse.

Maps of Great Britain, United Kingdom and the British Isles.

Until you know the difference between the British Isles, and Great Britain, you should probably sit down?

Gravitricity wound up voluntarily with under £8k assets Scotland-headquartered energy storage company Gravitricity quietly entered liquidation in October last year.

No it didn't.

www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/energy-stora...

No. Best suggestion is a vertically mounted tool board / tool hanger for some specialised tools.

Ian Angell paper abstract; sadly text as an image at source.

Some possible downside scenarios were discussed contemporaneously; I remember Ian Angell's 1995 paper 'I Have Seen the Future... and it WORKS!' (for some)' being digested in UK government IT circles.

It was a strange time.

Yes & no. Can be used for civil nuclear purposes or for WMD.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriche...

A body language lesson gone wrong: why is George Osborne standing like Beyoncé? First it was the chancellor – and then Theresa May and Michael Gove adopted the same legs-spread-wide stance. We ask an expert how Tory ministers might better attempt to assert their power

It's the so-called power stance; was big in the UK a few years ago.

www.theguardian.com/politics/sho...

White uranium hexafluoride crystals sealed in a glass ampoule

My bad. It's actually the U-235 fraction which yields fissile material. Anyway: white orthorhombic crystals at room temperature.