Conn MacEvilly
@conmachiavel.bsky.social
Woodkern by inclination, kern by trade. Iraq and Afg vet. 40 years ago, aspired to be neutral good half-elf ranger: getting closer to that by the day, I think.
Interested in law and public policy, defence, information security and the climate emergency.
Interested in law and public policy, defence, information security and the climate emergency.
That’s an oversimplified summary of what he’s saying, Sam.
His core points in that post are that -
a. Brexit was a strategic error for the UK, based on profound misunderstanding of geopolitics and economics work now.
b. Transactionalism isn’t enough. There needs to be a desire to join for peace
His core points in that post are that -
a. Brexit was a strategic error for the UK, based on profound misunderstanding of geopolitics and economics work now.
b. Transactionalism isn’t enough. There needs to be a desire to join for peace
December 14, 2025 at 1:37 PM
That’s an oversimplified summary of what he’s saying, Sam.
His core points in that post are that -
a. Brexit was a strategic error for the UK, based on profound misunderstanding of geopolitics and economics work now.
b. Transactionalism isn’t enough. There needs to be a desire to join for peace
His core points in that post are that -
a. Brexit was a strategic error for the UK, based on profound misunderstanding of geopolitics and economics work now.
b. Transactionalism isn’t enough. There needs to be a desire to join for peace
He links back to a 2019 post of his which, now, is a stroll down Amnesia Lane to Vindication Plaza.
Warning: Don’t read it unless you want to be reminded of Dominic Raab.
@chrisgrey.bsky.social
chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/brit...
Warning: Don’t read it unless you want to be reminded of Dominic Raab.
@chrisgrey.bsky.social
chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/brit...
December 14, 2025 at 1:27 PM
He links back to a 2019 post of his which, now, is a stroll down Amnesia Lane to Vindication Plaza.
Warning: Don’t read it unless you want to be reminded of Dominic Raab.
@chrisgrey.bsky.social
chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/brit...
Warning: Don’t read it unless you want to be reminded of Dominic Raab.
@chrisgrey.bsky.social
chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/brit...
… impetus in the UK. But it *has* been done before: in 1975.
Back then, a generation that had actually fought was active in British politics. They - and their loved ones - understood. /end
Back then, a generation that had actually fought was active in British politics. They - and their loved ones - understood. /end
December 14, 2025 at 11:47 AM
… impetus in the UK. But it *has* been done before: in 1975.
Back then, a generation that had actually fought was active in British politics. They - and their loved ones - understood. /end
Back then, a generation that had actually fought was active in British politics. They - and their loved ones - understood. /end
My point was that you can’t force uptake of these terms in languages. Gulf of America?
Anyway, it’s clearly a geographical term currently in use in other languages. You may wish it otherwise but it is. If its use below by German TV in 2024 isn’t geographical, in what way is it being used here?
Anyway, it’s clearly a geographical term currently in use in other languages. You may wish it otherwise but it is. If its use below by German TV in 2024 isn’t geographical, in what way is it being used here?
December 13, 2025 at 4:58 PM
My point was that you can’t force uptake of these terms in languages. Gulf of America?
Anyway, it’s clearly a geographical term currently in use in other languages. You may wish it otherwise but it is. If its use below by German TV in 2024 isn’t geographical, in what way is it being used here?
Anyway, it’s clearly a geographical term currently in use in other languages. You may wish it otherwise but it is. If its use below by German TV in 2024 isn’t geographical, in what way is it being used here?
Yes, it seems Norman Davies (author of the book extract you provided, and a historian, not a geographer) and the Irish government agrees with you.
To an extent, the British government does too. Its Interpretation Act 1978 created the term “British Islands”.
But it’s not 🌐 universal yet.
To an extent, the British government does too. Its Interpretation Act 1978 created the term “British Islands”.
But it’s not 🌐 universal yet.
December 13, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Yes, it seems Norman Davies (author of the book extract you provided, and a historian, not a geographer) and the Irish government agrees with you.
To an extent, the British government does too. Its Interpretation Act 1978 created the term “British Islands”.
But it’s not 🌐 universal yet.
To an extent, the British government does too. Its Interpretation Act 1978 created the term “British Islands”.
But it’s not 🌐 universal yet.
Yes, it could be said that Ptolemy (a geographer) erred in calling the islands “Britannicae” and his error was maintained by other geographers (Ortelius, Mercator) and languages (🇫🇷🇮🇹🇳🇱🇧🇪🇵🇹🇪🇸🇩🇪). But it’s right up to the present day. You’ve got your work cut out, fixing a bunch of other languages.
December 13, 2025 at 4:36 PM
Yes, it could be said that Ptolemy (a geographer) erred in calling the islands “Britannicae” and his error was maintained by other geographers (Ortelius, Mercator) and languages (🇫🇷🇮🇹🇳🇱🇧🇪🇵🇹🇪🇸🇩🇪). But it’s right up to the present day. You’ve got your work cut out, fixing a bunch of other languages.
Lads: geographical compromise? “Britannic Islands”? 😬
1. Provenance: Ptolemy 🇬🇷🇮🇹, Ortelius 🇳🇱, Mercator🇧🇪👍🏻
2. Identity: avoids use of a term that now connotes nationality; refers to Celtic Britons, pre Angles and Saxons. 🇮🇪🏴🏴👍🏻
3. Usage: already in use 🇫🇷🇪🇸🇵🇹
It’s a win-win and we can all relax.
1. Provenance: Ptolemy 🇬🇷🇮🇹, Ortelius 🇳🇱, Mercator🇧🇪👍🏻
2. Identity: avoids use of a term that now connotes nationality; refers to Celtic Britons, pre Angles and Saxons. 🇮🇪🏴🏴👍🏻
3. Usage: already in use 🇫🇷🇪🇸🇵🇹
It’s a win-win and we can all relax.
![Text from p 1 of the book. “Book 2 [of Ptolemy’s ‘Geography’, from the second century CE] begins the description of the various land masses, and Ireland, described as ‘Hibernia island of Britannia’, was the first to be examined.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2772baqwlamm7ovlm3lm3clo/bafkreib57hsur5dj6uqaiax6pur2kavrqht6f7fpglipp56r5hhqpbtj4m@jpeg)
December 13, 2025 at 4:20 PM
Lads: geographical compromise? “Britannic Islands”? 😬
1. Provenance: Ptolemy 🇬🇷🇮🇹, Ortelius 🇳🇱, Mercator🇧🇪👍🏻
2. Identity: avoids use of a term that now connotes nationality; refers to Celtic Britons, pre Angles and Saxons. 🇮🇪🏴🏴👍🏻
3. Usage: already in use 🇫🇷🇪🇸🇵🇹
It’s a win-win and we can all relax.
1. Provenance: Ptolemy 🇬🇷🇮🇹, Ortelius 🇳🇱, Mercator🇧🇪👍🏻
2. Identity: avoids use of a term that now connotes nationality; refers to Celtic Britons, pre Angles and Saxons. 🇮🇪🏴🏴👍🏻
3. Usage: already in use 🇫🇷🇪🇸🇵🇹
It’s a win-win and we can all relax.
‘Casablanca’, for the first time, in a small cinema in Paris in 1990. At the ‘Marseillaise’ scene, the audience stood up and sang too.
‘Arrival’ with my 13yo daughter. IYKYK.
Mobilised for the Iraq war in 2003, I skipped work to watch LOTR:TT on my own in the Barbican, London. Sam’s speech:
‘Arrival’ with my 13yo daughter. IYKYK.
Mobilised for the Iraq war in 2003, I skipped work to watch LOTR:TT on my own in the Barbican, London. Sam’s speech:
December 13, 2025 at 12:51 AM
‘Casablanca’, for the first time, in a small cinema in Paris in 1990. At the ‘Marseillaise’ scene, the audience stood up and sang too.
‘Arrival’ with my 13yo daughter. IYKYK.
Mobilised for the Iraq war in 2003, I skipped work to watch LOTR:TT on my own in the Barbican, London. Sam’s speech:
‘Arrival’ with my 13yo daughter. IYKYK.
Mobilised for the Iraq war in 2003, I skipped work to watch LOTR:TT on my own in the Barbican, London. Sam’s speech:
Bit of a stretch to call an analysis by academics from Stanford University, King’s College London and the National Bureau of Economic Research “disinformation.” You’re accusing those academics of lying. Really?
www.nber.org/papers/w34459
www.nber.org/papers/w34459
December 5, 2025 at 12:25 AM
Bit of a stretch to call an analysis by academics from Stanford University, King’s College London and the National Bureau of Economic Research “disinformation.” You’re accusing those academics of lying. Really?
www.nber.org/papers/w34459
www.nber.org/papers/w34459
Interesting discussion. Apparently the word “American”, in English, originally meant Native Americans.
It changed meaning in the 17th century, coming to mean Europeans in America. Its meaning in English changed again in the run-up to US independence to mean inhabitants of British America.
It changed meaning in the 17th century, coming to mean Europeans in America. Its meaning in English changed again in the run-up to US independence to mean inhabitants of British America.
![In the 16th century, European usage of American denoted the native inhabitants of the New World.[36] The earliest recorded use of this term in English is in Thomas Hacket's 1568 translation of André Thévet's book France Antarctique; Thévet himself had referred to the natives as Ameriques.[36] In the following century, the term was extended to European settlers and their descendants in the Americas. The earliest recorded use of "English-American" dates to 1648, in Thomas Gage's The English-American his travail by sea and land: or, a new survey of the West India's.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2772baqwlamm7ovlm3lm3clo/bafkreiesb7scrjyagrvxb3wmhzqvhnlnqyahia53z3a5xc623lfavzh6oy@jpeg)
November 27, 2025 at 1:31 AM
Interesting discussion. Apparently the word “American”, in English, originally meant Native Americans.
It changed meaning in the 17th century, coming to mean Europeans in America. Its meaning in English changed again in the run-up to US independence to mean inhabitants of British America.
It changed meaning in the 17th century, coming to mean Europeans in America. Its meaning in English changed again in the run-up to US independence to mean inhabitants of British America.
Ah, OK. I got that when I was working in L.A.: people thought I was 🇬🇧 because they couldn’t place my accent, which is similar to the actor Andrew Scott’s.
I doubt they’d have kept calling me British after being corrected, though. That’s as rude as calling an American “technically British”. 🤣
I doubt they’d have kept calling me British after being corrected, though. That’s as rude as calling an American “technically British”. 🤣
November 27, 2025 at 1:01 AM
Ah, OK. I got that when I was working in L.A.: people thought I was 🇬🇧 because they couldn’t place my accent, which is similar to the actor Andrew Scott’s.
I doubt they’d have kept calling me British after being corrected, though. That’s as rude as calling an American “technically British”. 🤣
I doubt they’d have kept calling me British after being corrected, though. That’s as rude as calling an American “technically British”. 🤣
A chilling game. Reviewed very favourably when it came out in 1985 (94% in Zzap!64), it was given 2.5 stars out of 5 in Computer Gaming World in 1994 because it had been “rendered obsolete by history and game play”.
History has unobsoleted it. I wonder what modern gameplay would do with it.
History has unobsoleted it. I wonder what modern gameplay would do with it.
November 27, 2025 at 12:18 AM
A chilling game. Reviewed very favourably when it came out in 1985 (94% in Zzap!64), it was given 2.5 stars out of 5 in Computer Gaming World in 1994 because it had been “rendered obsolete by history and game play”.
History has unobsoleted it. I wonder what modern gameplay would do with it.
History has unobsoleted it. I wonder what modern gameplay would do with it.
“Video games still occupy a strange cultural position, so all many people know about them is that they don’t want to know about them.”
It’s maddening.
I played “Detroit: Become Human” on Sat. Tried to tell my family about it.
Instant eye-glaze. Me: “But it gets 91% on IMDB! It has actors!”
It’s maddening.
I played “Detroit: Become Human” on Sat. Tried to tell my family about it.
Instant eye-glaze. Me: “But it gets 91% on IMDB! It has actors!”
November 24, 2025 at 6:57 AM
“Video games still occupy a strange cultural position, so all many people know about them is that they don’t want to know about them.”
It’s maddening.
I played “Detroit: Become Human” on Sat. Tried to tell my family about it.
Instant eye-glaze. Me: “But it gets 91% on IMDB! It has actors!”
It’s maddening.
I played “Detroit: Become Human” on Sat. Tried to tell my family about it.
Instant eye-glaze. Me: “But it gets 91% on IMDB! It has actors!”
Funny you say that. In chats with Labour defenders of the policy y’day, I found them denying the confiscation policy would include personal jewellery because “jewellery” doesn’t appear in the wording of the policy (“assets” does). They denied it was confiscation because that word isn’t used either.
November 18, 2025 at 8:23 AM
Funny you say that. In chats with Labour defenders of the policy y’day, I found them denying the confiscation policy would include personal jewellery because “jewellery” doesn’t appear in the wording of the policy (“assets” does). They denied it was confiscation because that word isn’t used either.
Super-interesting piece - thank you.
This passage reminds me of chats I’ve had with people who (like me) favour reunification but avoid thinking about the consequences.
Their answers to “how will we protect 🇬🇧 identity in a UI?” are:
1. We won’t: it will die off
2. Why should we? It’s false/evil
This passage reminds me of chats I’ve had with people who (like me) favour reunification but avoid thinking about the consequences.
Their answers to “how will we protect 🇬🇧 identity in a UI?” are:
1. We won’t: it will die off
2. Why should we? It’s false/evil
November 18, 2025 at 8:13 AM
Super-interesting piece - thank you.
This passage reminds me of chats I’ve had with people who (like me) favour reunification but avoid thinking about the consequences.
Their answers to “how will we protect 🇬🇧 identity in a UI?” are:
1. We won’t: it will die off
2. Why should we? It’s false/evil
This passage reminds me of chats I’ve had with people who (like me) favour reunification but avoid thinking about the consequences.
Their answers to “how will we protect 🇬🇧 identity in a UI?” are:
1. We won’t: it will die off
2. Why should we? It’s false/evil
I had a fun time on BlueSky yesterday, engaging with Labour defenders of the govt’s new asylum policy.
My disgust was “performative outrage”, apparently. I was “fixated on jewellery”. I was “babbling” when I wrote that the policy traduces socialist values.
Reminded me of online Brexit debate. 🇬🇧
My disgust was “performative outrage”, apparently. I was “fixated on jewellery”. I was “babbling” when I wrote that the policy traduces socialist values.
Reminded me of online Brexit debate. 🇬🇧
November 18, 2025 at 7:34 AM
I had a fun time on BlueSky yesterday, engaging with Labour defenders of the govt’s new asylum policy.
My disgust was “performative outrage”, apparently. I was “fixated on jewellery”. I was “babbling” when I wrote that the policy traduces socialist values.
Reminded me of online Brexit debate. 🇬🇧
My disgust was “performative outrage”, apparently. I was “fixated on jewellery”. I was “babbling” when I wrote that the policy traduces socialist values.
Reminded me of online Brexit debate. 🇬🇧
The Secretary of State’s speech yesterday introduced the policy to the House. The speech and the document are directly linked. You can’t rely on her words and ignore her document.
“Performative outrage”. No: just disgust. A government I voted for is behaving like the worst of the far-right.
“Performative outrage”. No: just disgust. A government I voted for is behaving like the worst of the far-right.
November 18, 2025 at 7:21 AM
The Secretary of State’s speech yesterday introduced the policy to the House. The speech and the document are directly linked. You can’t rely on her words and ignore her document.
“Performative outrage”. No: just disgust. A government I voted for is behaving like the worst of the far-right.
“Performative outrage”. No: just disgust. A government I voted for is behaving like the worst of the far-right.
Again, the policy as published just says “assets”. It makes no exception for any kind of asset. It expressly states that non-cash assets are in scope.
So the SoS is being dishonest in suggesting that mandatory contributions will be limited to “cash in the bank.” That’s not what her policy says.
So the SoS is being dishonest in suggesting that mandatory contributions will be limited to “cash in the bank.” That’s not what her policy says.
November 17, 2025 at 11:09 PM
Again, the policy as published just says “assets”. It makes no exception for any kind of asset. It expressly states that non-cash assets are in scope.
So the SoS is being dishonest in suggesting that mandatory contributions will be limited to “cash in the bank.” That’s not what her policy says.
So the SoS is being dishonest in suggesting that mandatory contributions will be limited to “cash in the bank.” That’s not what her policy says.
They may be despatched to recover a debt based on an amount based on income, if arrears have built up. Did you read the BBC article you linked to?
November 17, 2025 at 10:48 PM
They may be despatched to recover a debt based on an amount based on income, if arrears have built up. Did you read the BBC article you linked to?
I don’t understand this fixation on the presence of particular words.
“Jewellery” is not mentioned but “assets” are, and that includes all valuables.
“Confiscation” is not used but “require to contribute … assets” is, which is confiscation.
I reject your assertion that I am dishonest.
“Jewellery” is not mentioned but “assets” are, and that includes all valuables.
“Confiscation” is not used but “require to contribute … assets” is, which is confiscation.
I reject your assertion that I am dishonest.
November 17, 2025 at 10:45 PM
I don’t understand this fixation on the presence of particular words.
“Jewellery” is not mentioned but “assets” are, and that includes all valuables.
“Confiscation” is not used but “require to contribute … assets” is, which is confiscation.
I reject your assertion that I am dishonest.
“Jewellery” is not mentioned but “assets” are, and that includes all valuables.
“Confiscation” is not used but “require to contribute … assets” is, which is confiscation.
I reject your assertion that I am dishonest.
Tony, you’re right that Alex Norris said on Sky News that wedding rings and family heirlooms will not be taken from those too poor to support themselves. But he didn’t rule out other assets, cash and non-cash, which could include jewellery, gold teeth, etc.
November 17, 2025 at 9:39 PM
Tony, you’re right that Alex Norris said on Sky News that wedding rings and family heirlooms will not be taken from those too poor to support themselves. But he didn’t rule out other assets, cash and non-cash, which could include jewellery, gold teeth, etc.
Those thin words in the publication tally with what Norris actually said on Sky. Here are his words, as reported by Guardian. As you can see, he denies that wedding rings and heirlooms will be taken but everything else is fair game. The official document doesn’t exclude any type of asset.
November 17, 2025 at 8:30 PM
Those thin words in the publication tally with what Norris actually said on Sky. Here are his words, as reported by Guardian. As you can see, he denies that wedding rings and heirlooms will be taken but everything else is fair game. The official document doesn’t exclude any type of asset.
Look, here is the publication laid before Parliament this evening. It’s couched in euphemism. But note that it clearly expects people **who do not have enough to support themselves** to give up cash **and non-cash** assets to fund their support.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/691ae0...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/691ae0...
November 17, 2025 at 8:25 PM
Look, here is the publication laid before Parliament this evening. It’s couched in euphemism. But note that it clearly expects people **who do not have enough to support themselves** to give up cash **and non-cash** assets to fund their support.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/691ae0...
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/691ae0...
I’m one of those who was forced to watch it by (a) lack of anything else on the telly and (b) grandmaternal veto power but who has come to love it.
Come for the songs and the romance; stay for the resistance against fascism.
Come for the songs and the romance; stay for the resistance against fascism.
November 16, 2025 at 11:53 PM
I’m one of those who was forced to watch it by (a) lack of anything else on the telly and (b) grandmaternal veto power but who has come to love it.
Come for the songs and the romance; stay for the resistance against fascism.
Come for the songs and the romance; stay for the resistance against fascism.