Martin Palmer
@martinpalmer.bsky.social
240 followers 490 following 340 posts
Deputy Chief of Stuff at Palmer & Palmer. Amiable misanthrope. Music & photography. Master of none. Left-leaning, evidence-based pragmatic idealist. Manc. https://www.flickr.com/photos/martinpalmer/
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Much as I enjoy the dancing, the costumes and the music, I do feel that #Strictly is slowly suffocating under the weight of dull, repetitive motivational speeches. God spare us this endless sentimental stodge.
It’s a human interest piece, concerning two people in relationship. I can quite understand how unrelatable that must be for you.
It’s a recurring weekly set-piece, where readers vote, and comment, on whether someone should modify a behaviour or attitude that annoys their partner. Just a light-hearted, human-interest diversion from the relentless tide of depressing shite that seems to require our constant attention.
That’s a very specific time-frame. If only there was some way of finding out which party was in power for all but the most recent of those 15 years…
Agree. It’s being held in the first city.
I think my toes are stuck like this now…
"Not clear"? It's crystal clear. No living Presidents on the coins. It's not a "tradition" - it's literally written in the Federal Code. Why don't you have the balls to say that?
Everybody back then saw the world in exactly the same detail and colour as we do now. So it's quite literally just what he saw in front of him. The real surprise in seeing an old painting like this is: why aren't there more examples of artists from that era (or even earlier) painting in that style?
Quite. Satirising current affairs has no place in the public discourse. We should treat *all* politicians and celebrities with absolute reverence, and avoid, at all costs, any form of joke or comment which might suggest that any public figure is less than an absolute paragon of honesty and virtue.
Wow. You’re angry, aren’t you? What exactly is it that you’re disagreeing with me about? I’m with you: the guy is British. I am commenting on the pressures - from the far right - upon Police and broadcasters, to reveal information at early stages of an investigation.
"Nice try" at...what, exactly? I'm just making an observation. No useful purpose is served by making public his ancestry, at this early stage of the investigation. But the Police and broadcasters are now mindful of the baying mobs who scream "cover-up!" if such information is not released promptly.
Police and broadcasters get it in the neck whether or not they disclose this information. Do they accommodate the “Why does it even matter?” faction, or the “Why are we not being told who the offender is, what are you hiding?!” lynch-mob element?
Looking forward to the grovelling apology at the top of next week’s HIGNFY
Her husband gets a mention before we learn her name…
Her husband gets a headline name-check, but her name is only mentioned once we get to the body of the article.
Hannan there, reliably wrong about EVERYTHING...
Reposted by Martin Palmer
Javier Milei had to beg a bail-out and already needs another. Argentina's economy is in a tailspin. Gov't bonds and peso in freefall. People starving, throwing rocks at him.

Farage last year: "He's amazing. It's Thatcherism on steroids. Cutting and slashing expenditure. That's leadership."

SHARE!
It is clearly being tolerated. Therefore we can only assume that, to American golf fans and tournament organisers, this is not, in fact, unacceptable behaviour.
It’s an actual village…
These people know what they’re doing, of course. It’s an ages-old technique. Float an incendiary idea, framed as a ‘joke’ or a metaphor. They’re just having a laugh! But the message gets out, loud & clear, and dissenters are derided as having “no sense of humour” or simply “misunderstanding”.
The facts of migration don’t become “more true”, as you put it, just because geneticists have added hitherto unknown pieces to the jigsaw of knowledge. Nobody is dismissing the vital work of historians, or denying the mountains of hard evidence they have uncovered. You’re tilting at shadows.
I already explained this. It's not *more* true, it's *provably* true. Historians told us that Richard lll was probably buried in Leicester. Archeologists then proved it. The facts of his burial didn't become "more true" at that point, but the extra evidence confirmed, and increased, our knowledge.