This image shows a person sitting on a bench seat inside a train or subway car, holding a large, fluffy dog on their lap. The dog has a thick, light gray to tan coat with a darker face, and its tongue is hanging out as it appears happily panting. The person is wearing a red jacket and blue jeans. The dog's leash is visible, and the person's hand is gently holding it. The window by their side lets in natural light, and blurred passengers can be seen seated further along the train.

Has science gone too far?

#GoneTooFar

Lowe is a far more accomplished bully, but Goodwin would no doubt come prepared with dodgy statistics and causationless correlations…

What a beautiful day! We’re not scared…

Cut off the head of a chicken, and then calmly negotiate a settlement with a headless chicken. Art of the deal.

Oh Brother where art thou.

Cosmically unfair that the two countries least affected by closing the straits are the US and Iran

Donald Trump: All the haters are low IQ, but I just aced another dementia test!

a man is talking to a woman and saying `` so you 're telling me there 's a chance . ALT: a man is talking to a woman and saying `` so you 're telling me there 's a chance .

Rosenior:

Markets blackout / unconcious?

I wouldn't touch a supplier like that with a 3.048m barge pole...

Ironically... If Starmer can survive (big if) then he can lump all the blame for poor performance at the local elections onto the Mandelson fallout, and gloss over [waves hands] everything else that has lead to his poor ratings...

They’ve used shit wording - whether or not No10 applied any direct pressure - there was obviously pressure on FCDO from the mere fact that the appointment had been announced (pre vetting).

Starmer survives (for now) but diminished - sounds like he did it all unknowingly - but that in itself looks weak. Now looks heavy handed and premature to have fired Robinson but I suspect they’ll prefer that criticism to murmurings that Starmer knew about the vetting or mislead the house etc..

A furious Starmer fires Olly Robbins because he knew about vetting but didnt tell - and replaces him by hiring someone who knew about the vetting but didn't tell.

We’re in the truly weird position where McSweeney had to go for giving the PM the advice to appoint Mandelson and Robbins had to go for not stopping him.

devolve into or blossom into? ;-)

OnlyMillifans?

Sun Tzu - The Art of War
Pete Hegseth - Beer Fart of War

Discourse is improved when people who reject the principle of discourse, leave the discourse.

And how do these things work - strictly speaking Robbins resigned (rather than being sacked) - so does that limit an unfair dismissal claim - or does it become constructive dismissal perhaps?

The buck stops with *[checks notes]*

Coo-eee!

Karoline Leavitt @PressSec Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump is Accelerating Medical Treatments for Serious Mental Illness

we've noticed and i'm glad he's getting help

bsky.app/profile/alia...

bsky.app/profile/alia...

bsky.app/profile/alia...

Does all this amount to:
Starmer - I knew Mandelson had issues and I was wrong to appoint him, but if Robbins had told me that Mandelson had issues I wouldn’t have appointed him.

I imagine it’ll be a question put to Robbins when he comes before committee but did Starmer ask Robbins why he over-ruled the vetting recommendation?
Feels like a pretty big question - and is the answer Starmer wanted to appoint a known wrong-un and Robbins thought identified risks could be managed.